Tactics for adversary near-future soldiers

[Michele]

Originally Posted by thrash

Even with a hand-off from other sensors, the aircraft's weapon systems have to be positioned to engage the target. TL9 munitions are good, but they still require a relatively clear run at the target. A missile that impacts an intervening building because it couldn't turn fast enough is still a miss.

That's a good point.

The problems with this approach are reaction times and BDA. If the target can change buildings faster than they can be engaged, you could rubble the entire central business district and still not get a kill -- and how would you know whether you'd succeeded?

No, I don't think so. With lock-on weapons you fire only once the weapon is locked on the target. That may well be enough.

If OTOH the target then moves and is fast and clever enough to evade a smart, homing, possibly hypersonic TL9 missile, then I suppose the warhead can either be self-destroyed or deactivated. That still causes a lot of collateral damage (in case the explosion is close to any buildings) or kinetic damage (in case the warhead hits the intended building but does not explode), but still doesn't take any buildings down. Lots of damage, but no complete rubble.

But thinking about it, you are right that reaction times may be an issue, in terms of deploying that air (and armor) support, in the first place.
I was thinking in terms of a deliberate super-hunting operation by the enemy. But that's not the only operations the enemy will launch.
Indeed, if the enemy had just sent out a small patrol, albeit made of powered-armor TL9 infantry, they probably haven't any immediate airborne support, and it's possible no tanks are in the vicinity either if this is a quiet sector. The supers should attack super-fast and disengage before those heavyweights have the time to show up.
I suppose a small patrol at TL9 will still have a comms-networked small flying drone, but that would make for a challenge for the supers, rather than almost certain demise.

[AlexanderHowl]

Alternatively, they can use abilities like Illusion (Independent, +100%; Mental, +100%; No Signature, +20%; Reliable +10, +50%; Psionic, -10%; Stigmata, +100%) [115] to cause soldiers to turn against each other. Such a super could easily destroy a squad, leaving only a couple survivors, and no one would know what really happened when the dust settled.

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by Rupert

We don't have stats for a modern wheeled APC, or a TL9( version, but they should be able to do better.

IF somebody can explain to me how to make a decent looking table on UBB, I've got a number of statted up vehicles. Vehicles I've worked up:

2.5 ton TL6/7 medium trucks
2.5 ton TL9 "robo" truck, that's essentially a sealed truck with TWO robot arms for handling cargo, repairs, field engineering, etc.

10 ton wheeled APC, in a varity of configurations from IFV(with a 15mm chaingun, 4-8 100mm missiles, and a 64mm mortar box) that carry about 10 guys, to versions that strip out troop capacity for superior ensors and/or weaponry.

An 18 ton wheeled APC that's generally more heavily armored and armed, again in a variety of configurations.

A 30 ton light tank based on the UT light tank.

A 30 ton "heavy apc" roughly based on the Armata APC(in fact, I have the light tank and the heavy apc based on the same chassis, to deliberately underscore that)

A 45 ton "main battle tank" with a semi-automatic 100mm cannon(because... WHY Not?!).

A poorly cribbed together Light attack heli and utility helo

And a 30 ton armored vertol.

[Varyon]

The [code] tag usually works pretty well for making tables. I typically make the table in notepad or similar (anything that makes all characters the same width will work), then paste it in.

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by Varyon

The [code] tag usually works pretty well for making tables. I typically make the table in notepad or similar (anything that makes all characters the same width will work), then paste it in.

[table]
[tr]
	[th]Vehicle[/th]
	[th]ST/HP[/th]
	[th]HT[/th]
	[th]Hnd/SR[/th]
	[th]Move[/th]
	[th]Loaded Wt[/th]
	[th]Load[/th]
	[th]SM[/th]
	[th]Occ[/th]
	[th]DR[/th]
	[th]Cost[/th]
	[th]Locations[/th]
[/tr]
[tr]
	[td]Hussar[/td]
	[td]150[/td]
	[td]13[/td]
	[td]-1/4[/td]
	[td]4/30[/td]
	[td]10[/td]
	[td]1.915[/td]
	[td]4[/td]
	[td]2+12[/td]
	[td]182/52[/td]
	[td]$241,000[/td]
	[td]8Wt[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

Err... This is what I get, which doesn't seem to work.

[thrash]

Originally Posted by Michele

With lock-on weapons you fire only once the weapon is locked on the target. That may well be enough.

If you can achieve lock with the weapon's own sensors, I agree that it's unlikely to miss.

I was referring back to the positioning problem: how long does it take from when the sensor network tags a target to when the launch platform is in position to deliver a weapon? If the super is able to change buildings (e.g., cross the street) in that interval, the shooter-to-target geometry may have changed enough to disrupt the current run-in, forcing a go-around and starting the cycle all over again.

In a more open environment or with slower-moving weapons platforms this isn't a problem, but makes it troublesome to use aircraft against mobile point targets in an urban area. Multiple fast-movers cycling in on a clover-leaf pattern might be able to overcome the issue, but it would be a coordination challenge (and a target-rich environment for the supers).

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

Err... This is what I get, which doesn't seem to work.

The CODE tag is basically a <pre> block in html; it isn't a table, but lets you manually create one.

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by Anthony

The CODE tag is basically a <pre> block in html; it isn't a table, but lets you manually create one.

Which puts me back at square one: I haven't done HTML coding in fifteen years. So, more or less, yeah, I have no idea how to create a decent looking table on the forums.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

Which puts me back at square one: I haven't done HTML coding in fifteen years. So, more or less, yeah, I have no idea how to create a decent looking table on the forums.

Vehicle  ST/HP HT Hnd/SR Move LWt Load  SM Occ  DR     Cost  Locations
Hussar   150   13 -1/4   4/30 10  1.915 +4 2+12 182/52 $241k 8Wt

[AlexanderHowl]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Vehicle  ST/HP HT Hnd/SR Move LWt Load  SM Occ  DR     Cost  Locations
Hussar   150   13 -1/4   4/30 10  1.915 +4 2+12 182/52 $241k 8Wt

So you end up with an APC that an ETC Heavy Chaingun can tear apart in one turn with APEP ammo? At least the Armored Hovercraft has better mobility.