[Ultra Tech] How to equip mass armies in TL9?

[seasalt]

There tends to be an assumption that in a near-future timeline, the status quo of the late 20th and early 21st century will prevail: The world is dominated by a few superpowers or large alliances with lavishly equipped, highly trained, elite professional military forces, and that large-scale conventional war between world powers is impossible due to the nuclear threat and the globalization of trade.

What if this turns out not to be true? Whether or not it will in the real world, let's assume for the purposes of a GURPS campaign. Using Ultra Tech as a basis (and I know some are not terribly fond of the equipment in that book, but it's what we've got), what would a foot soldier in early-to-mid TL9 be equipped with?

First, the obvious caveat - for whatever reason, assume it's not feasible for drones to completely take over the battlefield, and that long-ranged precision artillery is not able to completely dominate to the point of rendering any other aspects of a military force superfluous. There are many ways this can be handled but here are my baseline assumptions to make a return to mass armies possible.

1) The AI networks controlling drones are unstable and error-prone, as well as vulnerable to hacking, jamming, etc., so they can't function without human supervision down to the squad level, so they are mostly integrated into traditional platoons instead of replacing them.
2) Active protection systems are able to pare back the lethality of artillery against large combined formations a bit and force them to employ smaller-scale fire support assets closer to the point of contact with the enemy.

With those in mind - I.e., that your mechanized/motorized/airmobile/etc infantry actually matter - what would they look like?

One thing I theorize, and that could make for an interesting dynamic, is the "high-low mix". Basically, instead of their whole military (except territorial defense units and so on) being trained to the best standards possible, it may make more sense to have a hardened core force of long-service professionals combined with quickly mobilized conscripts/contractors/volunteers/etc.

I think that the biggest thing enabling this in an early TL9 setting is the proliferation of AI-assistant technology. The proverbial AR goggles that tell you everything you need to do. As well as deprofessionalizing a lot of the economy, this will, to an extent, deprofessionalize warfare as well. Micro-facturing and smart materials might make it more feasible to have large formations in the field with far smaller, less vulnerable supply lines. Improved electric vehicle technology means mobile units can operate independently for an extended period of time without stringing out a bunch of vulnerable fuel depots and tanker convoys behind them. This may result in military forces going "back in time" and behaving more like their WW2 equivalents rather than than advanced cold war militaries.

For a mass-mobilized soldier, rather than the fancier stuff, I think you might end up with something like this:

Armor: Light clamshell armor, light infantry helmet with visor, boots, and reflex trousers and armguards. Total weight 25 pounds. That's about 1530 gurpsbucks worth, not counting electronics, which means you can equip 6 men with this kit for the cost of giving one a combat hardsuit, or 60 men for the cost of one trooper in powered armor.

Weapon: Gyrojet carbine with underbarrel shotgun. At medium to long range combat, this is by far the best, most cost-effective weapon. Micromissiles that ignore range penalties are by far the most likely kind of attack to hit at 1000+ yards. The underbarrel shotgun provides a cheap weapon for use on insurgents in urban combat who aren't worth expending gyrojet rounds on, and for shooting down cheap microdrones using shot loads, as well as some other utility like firing small jammer rounds and possibly even nerve gas rounds, which is a very efficient weapon against tough-yet-cheap torso armor such as the reflex tactical vest with traumaplates. APHC micromissiles are $250 each.

That's not cheap - a full magazine of them costs some 60% more than the carbine and shotgun together. But hitting the enemy before he hits you is priceless. A hastily-mobilized, poorly-trained soldier with a Guns skill of 9 and art.(guided missiles) skill of 8, when given a good targeting program, will succeed at getting a lock slightly more than half the time, which means the modified skill for the missile attack is 15, with no range penalties - practically a guaranteed hit if the target isn't prone or behind cover. And even if the firer fails to get a lock, the gyromissile is still more likely than not to hit the target. In comparison, a highly-trained soldier with Guns at 11 and accuracy 6 on his fancy rifle is still nowhere close to negating the punishing -16 penalty for shooting at 1000 yards away. They can spend 3 times as long lining up the shot and then fire a full burst from a bipod, and still need a 8 or less to hit. If the target is in cover or prone, forget about it. Even in urban warfare, the gyrojet starts becoming much more likely to hit from 50 yards and up, which isn't that far at all... and more importantly, it is still pretty likely to hit when hip-fired with a move-and-attack action, whereas a conventional rifle will never hit anything that way.

A decent liquid-propelled 7mm assault rifle with an underbarrel grenade launcher is about 50% heavier and 4 times as expensive, while also being less accurate and lacking stopping power (pi- damage) if it's loaded with armor-piercing or sabot ammo (which it really should be). Yes, bullets are cheaper than gyrojets and especially micromissiles, but they also draw more attention to you, while gyrojets are near-silent, making it less likely that enemies realize which direction your shots are coming from. That being said, it would make sense to arm one fire-team per squad with the assault rifle/GL combo instead, since it is better at closer quarters combat. Plus, some elite units may be able to afford to equip all their troops with infrared-cloaking armor (which requires a sealed suit, plus $1500), reducing the gyromissile's effective skill of 13 to a 9.

Most importantly, the computer. A "Fast, Hardened" small computer costs $4000, about as much as the rest of the equipment put together, but it can run the "silhouette" and "targeting" programs, replacing or augmenting tens of thousands of dollars worth of training. This is probably the most economical big-ticket item to buy for combat troops, since unlike armor, the computer is likely to outlive its owner if he becomes a casualty, and it can be immediately reissued to someone else after you pull it off his wounded or dead body.


...alternatively this may STILL be too expensive. It could be that the real future of warfare, for at least some combatants, is a weapon that an illiterate slum-dweller can figure out how to use within an hour of having it pushed into his hands. It may not be worth armoring or training cannon-fodder infantrymen at all, instead just giving them a cheap, idiot-proof weapon with just enough ammo for a single engagement. It could be that the solution will be dirt-cheap plastic versions of TL8 weapons such as grenade launchers or assault rifles, with sealed pre-loaded barrels so the shooter doesn't need to know how to clean, maintain or repair his gun, with no money spent on armoring the combatant, since he'll probably become a casualty if he gets targeted anyway. If I understand the rules from page 10 correctly, you could issue "soldiers" TL8 grenade launchers costing $150-$200, then blanket the battlefield with obscurants to let them get close enough to fire them off. Rather than expensive training drawing on a dwindling pool of high-quality candidates, it may be more viable to gather up slum dwellers from the bottom rung of society, inject them with some drugs to boost their aptitude and confidence, and herd them towards the enemy as a distraction while your elites do their work.

What are your thoughts?

[Rupert]

Firstly, even with electronic assistance soldiers are not going to see, or have line of sight even, other soldiers at 1000+ yards the vast majority of the time. If nothing else stealth tech should be keeping up with sensor tech, roughly. This is especially true if drones can't be everywhere, seeing everything.

That means you don't need gyrojets with microhoming missiles. When those are useful, just call in a mortar strike, or hose the area with a machinegun.

I'd expect liquid-propellant or ETC rifles in fairly conventional calibres to dominate. They cost more than conventional weapons but they and their ammo are still fairly cheap. Also they have the option of some serious armour penetrating kinetic energy rounds, something a 15mm gyroc round doesn't at TL9.

As for armour - clamshells are for your second-grade grunt - cheap and cheerful. Don't bother with limb protection - these plus a helmet keep your dudes alive, which is what counts.

The pro will be using tactical vests with leggings and sleeves for high-threat and/or low mobility situations (with plates, of course), and tacsuits with all the stealth gear, etc. for sneaking around. These cost more (especially the tacsuits), but give better protection for weight, and in the case of the tacsuit are much more comfortable.

If chemical warfare comes back into vogue tacsuits for the pros will be definitely the go, because putting a noddy suit under/over other armour will cause a loss of effectiveness (DX penalties, etc.), so will probably be only a second grade issue.

[Fred Brackin]

Artillery? Is this setting some sort of groundpounder wish fulfillment where air forces have been made not to exist?

Sergeants might be issued gyroc homing missiles for anti-sniper work. Everyone else might have an underbarrel grenade launcher for a mix of area effect and anti-armor work (HEAT). Put this under a gun barrel that shoots something cheap for unarmored close range targets (but not a shotgun).

Everyone gets at least a tacsuit. You won't have troops who die cheaply enough to not justify the armor. Even what you'll spend on rations over a whole deployment is too much to throw away.

To really get what the OP wants is going to require much GM handwavium.

[Anthony]

The current war in Ukraine seems like a decent place to start. It's not TL 9 but it's a fairly solid TL 8. Some lessons:

Drones are omnipresent as spotters. They're also disposable with a battlefield lifespan measured in hours. They also get used for attacking but don't seem as important in that role. TL 9 beam weapons would dramatically alter their use patterns, because one of the hard parts of dealing with drones is that they're cheaper than the missiles to shoot them down, but they wouldn't be cheaper than shooting them down with beam weapons. Still, I think drones as spotters are here to stay.

It appears to be possible to have situations where air defense is better than aircraft and therefore neither side can achieve air superiority. This seems to result in combat devolving into trench warfare that would be familiar to people from WWI.

I would consider gyroc weapons unlikely; the ammunition is too expensive. The raw quantity of ammunition that is being consumed is absolutely amazing.

Body armor appears to be in use but limited.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Anthony

It appears to be possible to have situations where air defense is better than aircraft and therefore neither side can achieve air superiority. This seems to result in combat devolving into trench warfare that would be familiar to people from WWI.

People in the rich English speaking countries tend to take air superiority for granted, but its pretty common for neither side to be able to move freely in their enemy's airspace. IIRC that happened in the Iran-Iraq War when Iraqi pilots found their wingmen exploding whenever they ventured into Iranian territory. It turned out that the Shah's air to air kit was very effective against their aircraft, so after heavy losses they became much more cautious (meanwhile Iran did not have access to US spare parts and munitions and quite a few of their most educated people were in prison or emigrating, so they could not destroy the Iraqi airforce on its ground with its air defense system).

[Rolando]

If using tanglers gets common then tangler solvent aerosol will be common too.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Anthony

TL 9 beam weapons would dramatically alter their use patterns, because one of the hard parts of dealing with drones is that they're cheaper than the missiles to shoot them down, but they wouldn't be cheaper than shooting them down with beam weapons. .

The cheapest beam weapon at all suitable for the anti-drone role is the $250,000 Point Defense Laser (power supply extra). You're going to have to amortize that over a lot of drones before the drones aren't still cheaper. A drone might blow up your laser before you're done paying it off too.

It could easily be that letting the drones have free reign is too expensive but direct economic comparisons probably still favor the drones.

[weby]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

The cheapest beam weapon at all suitable for the anti-drone role is the $250,000 Point Defense Laser (power supply extra). You're going to have to amortize that over a lot of drones before the drones aren't still cheaper. A drone might blow up your laser before you're done paying it off too.

It could easily be that letting the drones have free reign is too expensive but direct economic comparisons probably still favor the drones.

The Semi-Portable Laser with 3.9km range would actually be quite usable for such use. In Ukraine it is reported that things like the Flakpanzer Gepard with only marginally longer theoretical effective range have been very effective.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

The cheapest beam weapon at all suitable for the anti-drone role is the $250,000 Point Defense Laser (power supply extra).

The $32,000 semi-portable laser is perfectly adequate -- it's a chemical power supply, but assuming the intent is that its power supply is supposed to be equivalent to an E cell, it's $20 per shot (the difference between the text and the weapon table is a pain).

If you ignore the 'chemical laser' part of the description, it's actually pretty similar to real world proposals.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Drones are omnipresent as spotters. They're also disposable with a battlefield lifespan measured in hours.

This appears to be true for small COTS drones.

Larger quadcopter-style racing drones are being fitted with RPG warheads, turning them into fairly effective longer-ranged ATGM and supplementing the fixed-wing Switchblade drones. Serious light AAA defenses might make them ineffective, however.

Small COTS quadcopter drones are also effective as harassment bombers, particularly when equipped with thermal sights so they can operate at night. They're incredibly cheap to repurpose as light attack vehicles with grenade- or mortar shell-dropping gear created using 3D printers. They've also earned their place on the battlefield as a cheap and effective method of destroying abandoned vehicles before they can be recovered.

What I haven't seen, but which is probably going on both sides, is small COTS drones being used as laser designators for laser-directed artillery shells.

The characteristic "swarm of hornets" buzz associated with current quadcopter drones can be reduced with modified propeller designs making them nearly invisible and silent killers.

The war has also shown that heavy, long-range, fixed-wing, stand-off attack drones aren't economical unless you've got complete air superiority. Drones like the RQ-1/MQ-1 Predator aren't in demand in Ukraine. (Alternately, they work just fine, but the US is being cagey about allowing the Ukrainians to have them due to the risk of top secret technology falling into enemy hands). The Bayraktar drones which were causing havoc at the beginning of the war are are being forced into pure high-altitude recon roles.

Large, fixed wing, long-ranged suicide drones only work if the enemy doesn't have adequate light AAA defenses. At the end of 2022, Russia was able to cause a lot of problems with swarms of Iranian Shahed drones, but they became much less effective once Ukraine repurposed MG & autocannons into the AAA role. (Including a pair of pintle-mounted Maxim guns which wouldn't have been out of place on an 1916 battlefield!).

Ballistic missiles are unbeatable without resorting to expensive and imperfect Theater Missile Defense systems like Israel's Iron Dome. Traditional cruise missiles are increasingly vulnerable to MANPAD missiles and similar inexpensive AAA defenses.

Originally Posted by Anthony

TL 9 beam weapons would dramatically alter their use patterns, because one of the hard parts of dealing with drones is that they're cheaper than the missiles to shoot them down, but they wouldn't be cheaper than shooting them down with beam weapons.

Cheap TL8 dazzle lasers might be sufficient to destroy drone optics, which would alter drone usage or at least require them to take countermeasures.

High quality radio jamming gear (which Russia either doesn't have or isn't using properly) can also keep drones down, at least until they're given sufficient computer brains to allow autonomous maneuvering. Radar- or laser-directed light AAA guns might act as a decent anti-drone countermeasure.

Wide deployment of anti-drone guns might also make drone use non-viable, but neither the Russians nor Ukrainians have fielded those weapons in sufficient numbers.

Originally Posted by Anthony

Body armor appears to be in use but limited.

There is some truly excellent body armor available, including some high-quality Russian helmets and ballistic vests that give NIJ IV equivalent protection. The relative absence of body armor comes from the fact that Ukraine was only partially reequipped to NATO standards when the Russians invaded, and the Russian military establishment pilfered and sold off their best body armor before the war began.

The rapid expansion of both armies means the Ukrainians are currently using whatever body armor donor countries feel like sending them, while the Russians burned through their best body armor supplies months ago. Russian "mobiks" are forced to use whatever they can buy, beg, or scrounge, including ballistic vests with the carrier plates removed and replaced with mild steel or thick plastic imitations.

It's probably safe to say that Ukrainian forces are equipped to c. 1990-2000 standards, while the few remaining elite Russian formations are equipped to about 2010 or 2020 standards. The "mobiks" are stuck with Cheap-Quality gear which ranges from TL6 upwards, including WW2 era Soviet helmets and Moisin-Nagant rifles!