TL9 Heavy Tank

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Rupert

AS I think I've said many times, here and elsewhere, I'm fairly sceptical about TL9 'AI' driving combat vehicles. Shooting? Sure, once the commander has designated something as a target or the AI's identified it as a target, but driving? Not so much.

Eh, driving is probably easier than a lot of shooting tasks, because roads aren't actively trying to deceive you.

[Witchking]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

I don't think there has ever been a state which could move thousands of AFVs to Ukraine without extensive use of trains.

Historically already done, United States circa 1941-45.

Moving them via SHIP (mostly liberty ships) 90% of the distance to the near port under control. Then perhaps a short rail jaunt, road transporter or if necessary via its own tracks.

Ukraine is a bit farther than Liverpool, Cherbourg or Antwerp...but so long as you control the seas not enough to matter. The main problem would be what port to ship them to.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

TL9 AI isn't bad at perception and world-modeling tasks the way real AI has been.

If we assume that a UT-style Non-Volitional AI of IQ10 is sufficient for combat driving (and I'd be very concerned about its lack of initiative), or a Volitional AI of IQ8 (has initiative, but will sometimes use it in dumb ways - like the kind of recruit armies get when they're desperate for warm bodies, but would very much rather not have), we need a C7 computer, which at TL9 is a 400 pound mainframe costing $100,000. Frankly,. I'd prefer the warm body, as a soldier can get out of the tank and perform maintenance, ammo resupply, and all that. An AI driver can't, and presumably with all this AI the only crew member is a commander and they're already managing the gunnery AI (and probably assorted dumb drones/recon robots), they don't need to be baby-sitting an idiot driver as well.

At TL10, when an IQ10 Volitional AI only needs a microframe, it's a different story.

And real-world AI looks to be worse than that - I'm not convinced it's a TL9 technology (and UT doesn't seem to actually give a TL for AI, so more than most stuff in UT it's setting-dependant).

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Witchking

Historically already done, United States circa 1941-45.

Moving them via SHIP (mostly liberty ships) 90% of the distance to the near port under control. Then perhaps a short rail jaunt, road transporter or if necessary via its own tracks.

Ukraine is a bit farther than Liverpool, Cherbourg or Antwerp...but so long as you control the seas not enough to matter. The main problem would be what port to ship them to.

Hope you have lots of roll-on roll-off transporters rated for 60-70 tracked vehicles. For reinforcing Ukraine, or your average small war, I'm sure there's enough. For a major war, maybe not.

Containerisation means that far, far fewer docks have cranes good for lifting tanks, and likewise ships - and in WWII one reason the US wasn't very interested in heavy tanks was that few ship and dockside cranes were rated for more than 30 tons. Modern tanks weigh much more, but even an adapted container crane will have a limit of about 35 tons.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Rupert

If we assume that a UT-style Non-Volitional AI of IQ10 is sufficient for combat driving (and I'd be very concerned about its lack of initiative), or a Volitional AI of IQ8 (has initiative, but will sometimes use it in dumb ways - like the kind of recruit armies get when they're desperate for warm bodies, but would very much rather not have), we need a C7 computer, which at TL9 is a 400 pound mainframe costing $100,000. Frankly,. I'd prefer the warm body, as a soldier can get out of the tank and perform maintenance, ammo resupply, and all that. An AI driver can't, and presumably with all this AI the only crew member is a commander and they're already managing the gunnery AI (and probably assorted dumb drones/recon robots), they don't need to be baby-sitting an idiot driver as well.

At TL10, when an IQ10 Volitional AI only needs a microframe, it's a different story.

And real-world AI looks to be worse than that - I'm not convinced it's a TL9 technology (and UT doesn't seem to actually give a TL for AI, so more than most stuff in UT it's setting-dependant).

Seems like a good argument for 'TL9 AI can drive a tank, but you might not want it to', yes.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Rupert

Hope you have lots of roll-on roll-off transporters rated for 60-70 tracked vehicles. For reinforcing Ukraine, or your average small war, I'm sure there's enough. For a major war, maybe not.

Containerisation means that far, far fewer docks have cranes good for lifting tanks, and likewise ships - and in WWII one reason the US wasn't very interested in heavy tanks was that few ship and dockside cranes were rated for more than 30 tons. Modern tanks weigh much more, but even an adapted container crane will have a limit of about 35 tons.

It seems like the obvious play there would be for the first ship to be full of military cargo-handling equipment...

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Seems like a good argument for 'TL9 AI can drive a tank, but you might not want it to', yes.

This is probably more interesting than "You can, and it's good" or "You can't".

"You [the player characters] have just been promoted, and are now proud commanders of a troop [platoon] of prototype self-driving tanks! Congratulations!"

[The Colonel]

Originally Posted by Rupert

Hope you have lots of roll-on roll-off transporters rated for 60-70 tracked vehicles. For reinforcing Ukraine, or your average small war, I'm sure there's enough. For a major war, maybe not.

Containerisation means that far, far fewer docks have cranes good for lifting tanks, and likewise ships - and in WWII one reason the US wasn't very interested in heavy tanks was that few ship and dockside cranes were rated for more than 30 tons. Modern tanks weigh much more, but even an adapted container crane will have a limit of about 35 tons.

Mind you, between Britain and the Soviets we managed to occupy Persia and set up a heavy load bearing logistics route into the Southern USSR built onto practically non-existent foundations. Bellum ipsem alet indeed.

[Witchking]

Originally Posted by Rupert

Hope you have lots of roll-on roll-off transporters rated for 60-70 tracked vehicles. For reinforcing Ukraine, or your average small war, I'm sure there's enough. For a major war, maybe not.

Well,

A. The US is not going to be pumping armor reinforcements of that scale into the current conflict. If that is starting to look 'reasonable', an Einstein quote that rattles around my mind with dread would sadly likely become appropriate.

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones".

B. My original point (that started this friendly run of touche-counter touche)was that Russia is certainly having problems managing its rail and 'last mile' non-rail logistics chain. That seems unlikely to change in the near future.

Sadly (like every war before it) no one KNOWS where this train is going. No war ever went where the original parties thought it was going to go. I just hope that the world community doesn't 'lose containment'.

I may not like people but there in no call to make them all go poof either.

[Þorkell]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Eh, driving is probably easier than a lot of shooting tasks, because roads aren't actively trying to deceive you.

Dunno, man, I've seen some damn shifty roads.