Vehicle of the Week: Musketeer

[Moonsword]

Vehicle of the Week: Musketeer Hover Tank

Built in the heyday of the rotary autocannon's popularity as Federated Suns companies scrambled to use the new technology, the Musketeer was produced by Corean Enterprises on New Avalon, a long-time builder of 'Mechs for the Suns.  In high demand after the battle for New Avalon in the FedCom Civil War, the Musketeer was built under an exclusive contract with the Armed Forces of the Federated Suns but was distributed widely due to high demand.  Even border militias have found themselves in possession of Muskteers thanks to purchases sent through the AFFS.  The future of the tank is hazy, however.  Putting together a solid idea of what happened to the production lines on New Avalon is difficult at best but it's inescapable that production was at least disrupted temporarily.  Without more information, it's impossible to tell what the status of things actually is.

One of the largest possible combat hovercraft at 50 tons, the Musketeer Hover Tank is relatively slow for the type with only a 119 kph top speed provided by the small 115 rated internal combustion engine.  (Please note that the engine is required to be at least 10 tons due to the 20% of tonnage requirement for hovercraft engines.)  The armor is reasonably heavy for the size and type, 7.5 tons of StarGuard CIV Ferro-Fibrous arranged 36/27/18/26 with the surprising and rare addition of CASE, but won't stand up to really heavy, sustained pounding.  The central feature of the Musketeer, though, is inarguably the Mydron Tornado RAC/5 in the turret.  Fed by the standard three tons of ammunition, the RAC can be a powerful weapon, but it obliges you to get in closer than you may want to, into reach of the hover's greatest natural predators, the heavier LB-X autocannons.  To exploit the holes opened by the RAC, engineers mounted a pair of Streak SRM 2s in the turret, and a TAG unit allows the Musketeer to spot for the various laser-guided munitions available, although the fluff indicates that Corean was apparently mainly thinking of artillery.

The only known variant at the time of publishing replaces the autocannon with a RAC/2, then piles the savings into armor.  Yes, there's certainly more ammo, over twice as much, but that's the way the ammo per ton increased, not any additional ammunition you don't need to begin with.  The final result is 9.5 tons of ferro-fibrous arranged 51/34/23/28.

The main problem with the Musketeer is the fact that it's a hover and therefore easily disabled and the Musketeer simply isn't fast enough to pull off the sort of targeting modifiers it needs to consistently evade things like LB-Xs.  The risk of jamming doesn't do a lot to help.  If you're planning to use Musketeers, realize that they're going to get immobilized easily and you're going to be left with RAC turrets.  Fortunately, they're relatively heavily armored RAC turrets (especially the RAC/2 variant), but that's cold comfort next to the likelihood of a -4 targeting modifier for your enemy.  Also, watch your fire rates.  Going full rattle can be impressive and powerful but it's also risky.  To really get some mileage the Musketeer, it works best with partner units that can open the engagement up, allowing the Musketeers to sprint in and exploit the breaches rather than opening the engagement where they can be disabled by charging into an unengaged opponent.

Stopping Musketeers is simple: Hit them.  It's a hovercraft, so the motive damage is even more inevitable than usual, and their weapons lack the range that lets Regulators keep at arm's length from more dangerous opponents.  The LB 10-X, with its mixture of range and cluster throwing, is probably the most common high risk weapon, but LB 20-Xs and SB Gauss rifles are both menacing figures in the anti-vehicle pantheon in their own right while things like mortars and SRMs can both be brought to bear on the problem.  Once it's slowed down, pound it down with focused fire and move on to another target; the priority needs to go to the RAC/5 variant with less armor and more firepower.

References: As a vehicle originally from TRO3067, the Musketeer is not currently in the MUL, but the imagery is over at Sarna's BattleTech Wiki.  The only miniature at CamoSpecs is in the colors of the 1st Federated Suns Armored Cavalry.

[Neufeld]

Thanks for the article. Looks like that this hover is not as good as I expected it to be. Seems like turning it is main problem, since that will drop the target modifier too far.

[Jim1701]

I would have liked to see some variants in 3085.  This vehicle would benefit from a fuel cell upgrade.  I'd go one of two ways.  The first would be to replace the 115 ICE engine with a 215 Fuel Cell engine.  To make up the weight I'd lose 1.5 tons of armor.  Upgrading the armor to HFF should partially offset the loss of the armor.  The increase in flank speed to 151 kph should also help offset the armor loss. 

The other would be to add a armored motive system.  You'd have to drop some armor and all the secondary weapons to that though.  You could still upgrade the engine to a 265 fuel cell with no increase in weight since it is no where near its maximum efficiency engine wise. 

I'd also like to see a Musketeer II come out that is 5 tons lighter.  50 tons is a bad weight for a ICE powered hovercraft. 

Despite all the complaints this is a hover I like.  It could be faster but it is fast enough to stay away from anything that can hurt it and anything that could catch it, shouldn't. 

[Ian Sharpe]

The Musketeer was the hovertank that I wanted to love, desperately, when I started playing: it looked cool, had an awesome gun.  I thought it would be just the thing to use with Regulators.  Sadly it never worked out that way.  Cries out for a fuel cell variant, maybe a light AC one since the FS seems to be using those heavily, and an LB-10X variant for completeness, though I still like the RAC.  I really need to get some of the minis, as I like both the art and mini for a change.

[Taurevanime]

I liked the Musketeer if only for it's use of an ICE engine in the age of FedSun XL engined conventional vehicles. It made it look like a very good tank for the various militia forces rather than the Davion Assault Guards.
As people have mentioned there are plenty of variants possible that can fix the problems with the tank without putting it into the cost bracket that it would be an elite regiment only unit. No matter what variant gets made, I hope they retain the TAG. There aren't that many in the AFFS roster. And the RAC/5 and TAG share the same range.

[3rdCrucisLancers]

IIRC, immobilized vehicles don't suffer the -4 to-hit modifier.

[Jim1701]

IIRC, immobilized vehicles don't suffer the -4 to-hit modifier.

If reduced to 0 MP, no they don't.  But if they are rendered immobile due to the rolling 11 or 12 (IIRC) on the motive crit chart.  Then yes, they do. 

[Moonsword]

I would have liked to see some variants in 3085.  This vehicle would benefit from a fuel cell upgrade.  I'd go one of two ways.  The first would be to replace the 115 ICE engine with a 215 Fuel Cell engine.  To make up the weight I'd lose 1.5 tons of armor.  Upgrading the armor to HFF should partially offset the loss of the armor.  The increase in flank speed to 151 kph should also help offset the armor loss.

Or you could do the smart thing and pull a Streak launcher so it's not an issue in the first place.

The other would be to add a armored motive system.  You'd have to drop some armor and all the secondary weapons to that though.  You could still upgrade the engine to a 265 fuel cell with no increase in weight since it is no where near its maximum efficiency engine wise.

You have to drop two tons of armor to fit the 7.5 ton armored motive system.  Another 1.5 tons for a 215 fuel cell is nearly half the armor on the tank.  (Please tell me I'm correct in assuming that the 265 engine was a typo.  Please.)  One or the other is reasonable.  Both at the same time and you're reaching the point where the armored motive system isn't really necessary in the first place.  On the other hand, personally, I'd prefer to see armored motive systems remain a relatively rare system that singles a unit out as different, so my opinion may not get you very far.

Despite all the complaints this is a hover I like.  It could be faster but it is fast enough to stay away from anything that can hurt it and anything that could catch it, shouldn't.

The problem with this logic is that to do its job - which is to engage the enemy - a Musketeer is obliged to get into reach of a number of weapons that it's going to regret running into, most prominently LB-Xs.  Getting maximum utility out of a RAC (and therefore being able to make things that can catch it regret doing so) similarly requires you to be close, and that means getting into SRM range in a lot of cases.

Frankly, the Musketeer's biggest problem is the rules changes from the BMR to TW.

[A. Lurker]

TW really pretty much put paid to the concept of a "hovertank" as such. Hovers still have their uses on the battlefield -- as spotters, fast transports, hit-and-run harassers if you feel daring --, but they're not really 'line' armor units like 'Mechs or like their tracked cousins anymore.

Which of course is bad news for the Musketeer because that's exactly where it badly wants to be: in the middle of combat, putting the hurt on things with its RAC and Streaks while optionally calling in artillery and LRM strikes via TAG. But it's not tough enough to last long in that position, and it's not quite fast enough to try to compensate in that way (partly due to the TW sideslipping rules for hovers) even before the first mobility hit slams home...

[Moonsword]

From what I've heard, TW was an overreaction to the fact that hovers were unholy terrors under the BMR.  I may wind up running some of these "unworkable" hovertanks under those rules sooner or later to get a feel for how they impact things.

[Auren]

On open terrain, Hovertanks made a mockery out of battlemechs.  :-\

[Jim1701]

Or you could do the smart thing and pull a Streak launcher so it's not an issue in the first place.

YOU might think it was the smart thing I, however, DO NOT.  I do not see armor as the primary consideration on a hover.  I see firepower and speed as a primary consideration on a hover.

You have to drop two tons of armor to fit the 7.5 ton armored motive system.  Another 1.5 tons for a 215 fuel cell is nearly half the armor on the tank.  (Please tell me I'm correct in assuming that the 265 engine was a typo.  Please.)  One or the other is reasonable.  Both at the same time and you're reaching the point where the armored motive system isn't really necessary in the first place.  On the other hand, personally, I'd prefer to see armored motive systems remain a relatively rare system that singles a unit out as different, so my opinion may not get you very far.

Yes, I meant a 165 for a 8/12 movement.  That would still be under the 10 tons that this tank currently pays for its 115 rated ICE.  Personally I'm not a big fan of armored motive systems myself due to their weight.  I was merely pointing it out as an option. 

Blah, blah, blah, hovers suck now.

I am totally sick of hearing how hovers got the shaft in TW.  Yes, they got toned down because they needed to be.  But hovers are still quite useful as scouts and harassers and I've used this one on previous occasions in both roles quite successfully. 

[Nodachi]

Hovers are still a pain just because they can still move. If the Musketeer can still get a halfway decent mod, it has half a chance. Team it up with something really fast and annoying, that gives it a better chance. There are enough 3025/3039 tech level VTOLs that are cheap enough for a milita unit to have that will give the slower moving hovertank a better chance.

[Weirdo]

Okay, let's not turn this into a flamefest, okay? Both sides of this need to calm down, please. [copper]

[FedSunsBorn]

As a militia hovertank, I actually think the Musketeer is a good tank. It has enough armor to survive most hits, enough firepower to hurt almost anything and just enough speed to hit an enemy where it hurts. Against pirates with only 3025 tech, this tank can bring the pain.

As a line unit for an army regiment...not so good. I find it's too slow for it's class, lacks the range, dmg and speed of the CapCon's Regulator and is generally outclassed by advanced units.

[Nodachi]

As I mentioned earlier. VTOLs, best way for a player to distract me from the slower target. While I unleash my hate on those vile, evil flying things I tend to feel some pain from heavier units before being brought back to reality. :D

[Kottos]

As noted above, the ICE keeps the Musketeer slow, but it also makes the Musketeer cheap. 

The best use I've found for the Musketeer is for running around light mechs like the raven.  Such mechs typically lack the tonnage for the fearsome lbx autocannons, large HAGs, and other common hovercraft remedies.  Many light mechs also have difficulty fighting outside of SRM range, and have little enough armor that RAC hits add up quickly. 

[Nikas_Zekeval]

As noted above, the ICE keeps the Musketeer slow, but it also makes the Musketeer cheap. 

The best use I've found for the Musketeer is for running around light mechs like the raven.  Such mechs typically lack the tonnage for the fearsome lbx autocannons, large HAGs, and other common hovercraft remedies.  Many light mechs also have difficulty fighting outside of SRM range, and have little enough armor that RAC hits add up quickly.

One, the design of the Musketeer and it's time frame of the FCCW makes it feel like a very basic platform for getting the latest toy, the RAC, into play.  Dirt cheap ICE, the bare minimum (going to a 165 ICE would require shaving two tons out of the design) size.  Normally a standard fusion engine would be better for strategic range, but the ammo concerns are going to tie you tightly to supply lines as it is.

Two, most people seem to be 'heavy to assault' focused on these discussions.  "It can't down a Dire Wolf, it's junk, waaaahhhhH!!!!!!".  Okay, I exaggerate, slightly.  ;)

Still folks, this is a 50 ton tank, focus on how it stacks up with opponents closer to it's weight class.  Some designs in that range do carry LBXs, but OTOH even if you are firing back with ammo conserving four round bursts most don't have the armor to accept that punishment for long.  And if you hit the edge of your medium range at speed you can build +5 or +6 from range plus your speed against a LB-10X.  Try risking flank, and remember that sideslipping unlike skidding A) has no motive system damage (baring the unintentional ram) and B) is always a straight piloting check, so a decent crew in an undamaged machine will only skid a couple of hexes, if that.

Third, know your tools.  When you think of all your problems as nails, you wind up using every tool as a hammer.  A Patton is a hammer, an Ajax or Challenger is a ****** sledgehammer.  A Hovertank is NEVER a hammer, not even the Saladin.  Using a crescent wrench as a hammer is a good way to break it, and be very frustrated at how poorly it performed.

For the historically minded think of hovercraft as cavalry, anywhere between Napoleon and the machine gun.  If it has to attack a prepared position or force head on things are going to be very bad for them.  However get the flank or rear while your 'infantry' has them fixed in another direction, or go around the hard points to hit their soft spots?

Think (spotted) hyena instead of lion here folks.  Harry the enemy, wear them down, then pounce on them when they stumble.  You aren't going to win the fight in one glorious charge and pounce.

Hovercraft can't really hold the line, save in the Russian strategy of trading space for time.  Use them to soften up an approaching enemy, or sending them wide for a flank strike just as your slower main force is opening the party.

[Crunch]

I've had a lot of luck using Musketeers on attack runs through injured formations. A lance of Musketeers making an attack run through a formation that's already been softened up by LRMs or a combat lance can be really effective.

They also seem to be pretty effective when combined with standard AFFS BA formations. 4 Musketeers, 4 Cavalry Infantry VTOLs, and 4 squads of Infiltrator II "Puma" (or any of the Cavalier variants) BA runs just about 8000 BV2 and hits pretty darned hard for a force with the mobility it can muster.

Strafing type attack runs also seem to minimize the effects of jamming for the RAC.

[A. Lurker]

(going to a 165 ICE would require shaving two tons out of the design)

You could readily do it by stripping out the Streak racks, which aren't really doing all that much for the tank anyway. You'd even have two tons left over to play with. (Theoretically up to two and a half, but that's strictly for people content to have the turret house exactly the RAC and nothing more, and in this case I'm not convinced that the extra half-ton would be worth it.)

[Jim1701]

I'd rather lose the armor and keep the streaks.  I'd be ok with losing the TAG too.  I really like TAG but its utility is limited here considering it's front mounted.  I'd upgrade the armor to HFF though.  I really wish they had made fuel cells standard for combat vees back when TW and TM came out.  A fuel cell engine solves a lot of this vees problems without requiring a big price tag increase or chopping big chunks off.

[Ian Sharpe]

Maybe a fuel cell Musketeer will be in the ONN section for the next TRO.

[A. Lurker]

I'd be ok with losing the TAG too.  I really like TAG but its utility is limited here considering it's front mounted.

Well, if we're talking about redesigning the tank anyway, it has to remain stuck there...why exactly, again? ;)

(Seriously, even on the stock Musketeer moving the TAG from the front to the turret would be a fairly plausible field modification. I'm just not quite sure about the exact refit class -- both A and C would seem to potentially fit.)

[Taurevanime]

I also do not see why you don't change the streak launchers to standard models. You save a little weight and it allows you to use infernos in case infantry might be a problem. It does mean when you hit you won't have all the missiles hit, but since it is only an SRM-2, I would be willing to trade that for ammo flexibility.

[Jim1701]

Well, if we're talking about redesigning the tank anyway, it has to remain stuck there...why exactly, again? ;)

(Seriously, even on the stock Musketeer moving the TAG from the front to the turret would be a fairly plausible field modification. I'm just not quite sure about the exact refit class -- both A and C would seem to potentially fit.)

That's a valid point.  It wouldn't change the weight of the turret (which is a grey area for refits) and make the TAG more viable.  I'm pretty sure it would be a class C since it is technically a piece of electronics.  I'd probably still remove it but that's just a personal preference on my part.  I prefer using dedicated units like Sprints for TAG.  The way BV and TAG works now its a lot less painful to improve a Sprint pilot than a Musketeer pilot when there is X tons of SG LRM ammo to pay for. 

I could also see downgrading the streaks though then I'd have to resist the temptation to up them to SRM 4's!  I think the armor would be getting thin even for me at that point though.   [drool]

[Arkansas Warrior]

I also do not see why you don't change the streak launchers to standard models. You save a little weight and it allows you to use infernos in case infantry might be a problem. It does mean when you hit you won't have all the missiles hit, but since it is only an SRM-2, I would be willing to trade that for ammo flexibility.

Not a bad idea at all.

[ArkRoyalRavager]

This tank would do nicely with a Cell engine and using saved tonnage on Armored Motive Systems. Maybe exchanging the MML 3s too. Loading infernos or plinking from range before the RAC gets into firing range really helps, if only to annoy the enemy.

[Jim1701]

This tank would do nicely with a Cell engine and using saved tonnage on Armored Motive Systems. Maybe exchanging the MML 3s too. Loading infernos or plinking from range before the RAC gets into firing range really helps, if only to annoy the enemy.

Unfortunately, that would not be possible.  The problem is you can't use all that weight savings.  The engine has to weigh 20% of the vehicle.  The current models actually pay and extra 2 tons for their ICE engines because of this. 

I really wish you could put on an armored motive system but the IS really gets screwed here.  Fifteen percent of total vehicle weight is a steep price to pay for a hover craft especially when it is already required to pay 20% for its engine. 

[ArkRoyalRavager]

I forgot about that part. Swap to a higher-rated Cell engine for extra speed as suggested earlier would be the best course then.

[Nebfer]

One of the largest possible combat hovercraft at 50 tons, the Musketeer Hover Tank is relatively slow for the type with only a 119 kph top speed provided by the small 115 rated internal combustion engine. 

Technically 7/11 is not it's top speed, at lest per the rules, first we have TWs road speed, which nets all ground based vehicles (wheeled, tracked and hover) a +1 movement on roads (if it spends the turn on one).
Then Tac ops has a pair of rules, with overdrive (sprinting), it's capable of twice it's cruising speed, the second is a sat nav uplink that adds a +1 mp as well. And the RPG adds a pilot option that gives a +2 mp if the unit "sprints". So the maximum speed it can get with out extra gear (the Tac ops supercharger in this case) is 18 MP or 194kph.