TL and Mass Combat

[Phoenix_Dragon]

Originally Posted by borithan

I wouldn't call the Tiger TL 7 by any stretch of the term. It is basically a 1930s design taken to the extreme (ie pile more and more armour on it and give it a big gun). T-34... could maybe be called a very early TL7 designation, but that's stretching it massively (and rides purely on it having sloped armour and being designed for mass production).

Ehhh, then you get into the messy distinction of what a vehicle updated to new tech counts as. I would certainly class the early Tiger as TL 6, and quite possibly the first T-34 (Designed in '37 and deployed in '40 could mean either very mature TL 6, or slightly early TL 7). But how do upgraded vehicles fit into the whole scheme? Most of the US aircraft fielded now were made before TL 8, but have been constantly updated since them.

In any case, I wouldn't call a 2010 F-16 a TL 7 aircraft, as it has components that didn't even exist in TL 7. But it isn't a strictly TL 8 aircraft, either, as many of the base components are. I think a similar situation fits for WW2 vehicles that rather straddle the line.

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

Basic set seems to disagree, and has TL7 as "1940+," which would mean most of WW2 was, technically, in TL7. I would certainly think most of the innovations later in the war are TL7. The jet engine, shaped-charge warheads, and arguably radar (Or at least the full development of it) would all qualify, I would think. But a lot of the stuff produced during the war would still be made at TL6 gear. Since TLs overlap some, it would often be true that many TL6 designs are still produced, or even conceived, when it's already TL7, especially since TLs can vary from location to location.

WWII is on the cusp between TL6 and TL7, with more than a few TL7 innovations being introduced especially later in the war, but the vast majority of the equipment fielded was TL6. High Tech explicitly calls it the Nuclear Age and says it begins with the harnessing of nuclear power.

Definitely more TL 6 than TL 7, IMO.

[Anders]

So a TL7 tank would be one that runs on nuclear power...

hmm...

:)

[borithan]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

Ehhh, then you get into the messy distinction of what a vehicle updated to new tech counts as. I would certainly class the early Tiger as TL 6, and quite possibly the first T-34 (Designed in '37 and deployed in '40 could mean either very mature TL 6, or slightly early TL 7). But how do upgraded vehicles fit into the whole scheme? Most of the US aircraft fielded now were made before TL 8, but have been constantly updated since them.

I would say go by the base model and just say the upgraded parts are TL8. If treating it as a whole object: Is the TL8 stuff well established (ie not just a new item being tried out)? Is there extensive TL8 upgrades? If both answers are yes then I would say TL8.

The Tiger, no matter which model, is TL6. It was an entirely straight forward heavy tank design. As far as I am aware there was nothing really new introduced in the Tiger aside from making the armour (which was traditional slab sided armour) very thick, and giving it a big gun (of a type which had been developed before the war).

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by borithan

I would say go by the base model and just say the upgraded parts are TL8. If treating it as a whole object: Is the TL8 stuff well established (ie not just a new item being tried out)? Is there extensive TL8 upgrades? If both answers are yes then I would say TL8.

The Tiger, no matter which model, is TL6. It was an entirely straight forward heavy tank design. As far as I am aware there was nothing really new introduced in the Tiger aside from making the armour (which was traditional slab sided armour) very thick, and giving it a big gun (of a type which had been developed before the war).

Bah, just multiply TS by some number between 1 and 2 if the unit doubles its TS each TL.

[MrKay]

Sorry about digging up old threads, but this was something I was wondering about when going over the Mass Combat rules myself.

As Verjigorm pointed out, the difference between a soldier firing a mid 19th century caplock muzzle-loader and one firing a WWI-era bolt action rifle is considerable - but this comparison skips the intervening step that by the GURPS timeline should fall within TL5; that of the cartridge single-shot breechloader such as the Martini-Henry rifle used by the British at Isandhlwana and Rorke's Drift.

I guess the question is simple; would such a weapon be counted as Fine or Very Fine TL 5 equpment, or Poor or Basic TL 6 equipment - the difference between TS 4/5 Skirmishers at TL 5 and TS 30/40 Riflemen at TL 6?

I've gone over this many times, and come to the conclusion that Rorke's Drift is very hard to pull off with the former, and Isandhlwana damn near impossible with the latter.

What say the experts?

[ericthered]

I call them TL 5 riflemen: half the TS of the TL6 rifles, which is where they are supposed to start.

[MrKay]

Originally Posted by ericthered

I call them TL 5 riflemen: half the TS of the TL6 rifles, which is where they are supposed to start.

That works. With Basic equipment, I'd assume?

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by MrKay

That works. With Basic equipment, I'd assume?

depends on how good it is: a crappy rifle design is still poor, and superior equipment is available in the form of reliability: look up the Martini-Henry rifle and you'll see it had substantial problems with jamming on the battlefield. you've already taken the hit for low TL, let the normal modifiers take over from there.