3075 Tiger/Panzer equivalent?

[Black_Knyght]

The year is 3075...

You're an armchair history buff who's familiar with the legendary historic reputation of the ancient Germanic Panther and Tiger tanks.

What modern tank, in the age of 3075, do you think might might rank as a roughly modern equivalent to those great armored monsters of yesteryears gone by?

[VhenRa]

The year is 3075...

You're an armchair history buff who's familiar with the legendary historic reputation of the ancient Germanic Panzers and Tiger tanks.

What modern tank, in the age of 3075, do you think might might rank as a roughly modern equivalent to those great armored monsters of yesteryears gone by?

I am having a hard time thinking of a tank so damned poor that it would be a good fit. The Tiger and Panther were horrible tanks. If you go off their undeserved reputation?

Axel IICs, Gauss Rommels, Myrmidons, maybe Manticores.

[Black_Knyght]

During WW2 they were greatly feared. Modern day hindsight makes them far less formidable to armchair historians.

But at one time they WERE considered badass...

[Porkins]

I am having a hard time thinking of a tank so damned poor that it would be a good fit. The Tiger and Panther were horrible tanks. If you go off their undeserved reputation?

Not sure where you are getting your information from but the Panther is acknowledged by most historians and military experts as one of the best tanks made in wwII.  Other than initial teething issues with the first batch that were quickly resolved, the tank was a perfect blend of speed, thick armor, powerful long distance gun and wide tracks.  It was a bit complex to build but so were most german tanks.  I have watched hundreds of documentaries and read dozens of books covering that war and have never heard of anyone disparage the Panther so I find your remark of it being horrible to be very odd.

As for the equivalent I would think the Rommel gauss variant might be a good one, assuming it was still in use by 3075. The gun is strong and long ranged, while the tank is thickly armoured and sppeed is average.

[SteelRaven]

Both the Tiger and Panther where ahead of their time and required more maintenance and logistics than what the Germans could not afford vs the Allies simplistic and easy to repair vehicles like the Sherman tanks. The Germans kept throwing resources super weapons like the Maus Super Heavy tank while tank crew left broken down Tigers and Panthers behind while retreating from the Allied advance. That said, Tigers did scare the hell out of Sherman tank crews. The Sherman was a match for most other more common Panzers but few Shermans had the fire power to tangle with a Tiger as many commanders saw that as a job for Tank Destroyers like the Hellcat and Wolverine (that changed after WWII obviously)

Back to the OP, all practicality aside:     

When the DI Morgan came up in Fan Articles Vehicle of the Week, many considered it the more expensive version of the Alacom and Schrek. Defiance had to offer low finance loans for smaller units to afford the beast. While it is scary, a Battlemech is probably more practical.

Likewise, the Marksman M1 was made to impress more than anything else. It does impress, the future mad First Prince Caleb Davion made the Marksman his ride of choice rather than a Federation built vehicle.   

The Rommel and Patton have served generation for a reason, both practical and powerful.   
 

[Porkins]

Both the Tiger and Panther where ahead of their time and required more maintenance and logistics than what the Germans could not afford vs the Allies simplistic and easy to repair vehicles like the Sherman tanks. 

The fact that the germans had supply problems does mot make the Panther a bad tank - that is a supply issue.  A Panther in normal condition was considered a "model" tank.

But yeah, the Patton and Rommels are great.  That DI Morgan becomes deadweight BV as soon as you land an engine hit on it with all those energy thirsty ppcs.

[Liam's Ghost]

Setting aside the discussion on tank hype...

How about the Alacorn? Big, spendy, fancy, powerful. Famously intimidating.

[AldanFerrox]

The fact that the germans had supply problems does mot make the Panther a bad tank - that is a supply issue.  A Panther in normal condition was considered a "model" tank.

The Panther was simply too heavy for it's own good (only two tons lighter than the IS-2 Heavy Tank), the engine was highly unreliable and had a bad habit of catching fire and the gearbox and the final drives ate themselves alive regularly. Also, the armor was extremely brittle which lead to massive spalling even if the armor wasn't penetrated. This is a picture https://collection.nam.ac.uk/images/960/100000-100999/100764.jpg of a Panther turret after being hit by high-explosive ammo from the 75mm cannon of a Sherman Tank. Another problem was the slow turret traverse speed compared to the Sherman (the Sherman needed 15 seconds for a full rotation, but the Panther needed between 20 and 45, depending on engine RPM). I highly recommend reading "Armored Thunderbolt" by Steven Zaloga to get a better picture about armored warfare in World War 2. Not only about the Sherman, but also about german tanks.

And talking about a Tiger equivalent, I would actually argue that the Şoarece Superheavy MBT is the closest thing to a Tiger BattleTech has. It has good weapons and thick armor for its time but it is also slow and unreliable (although the tank is clearly a homage to the Maus. Şoarece is actually the word for mouse in the Romanian language).

[SCC]

The fact that the germans had supply problems does mot make the Panther a bad tank - that is a supply issue.  A Panther in normal condition was considered a "model" tank.

But yeah, the Patton and Rommels are great.  That DI Morgan becomes deadweight BV as soon as you land an engine hit on it with all those energy thirsty ppcs.

You're confusing your rules, tanks that take an engine don't have trouble firing their weapons, even energy weapons, due to increased heat build up.

The problem they have is moving.

[SteelRaven]

I never said the Panther was a bad tank, I said it was ahead of it's time It's a debate for another time regardless.

Anyway, I'll add the Demolisher to my list as it continues to give Mechwarrior a brown pans moments when they round the corner.

The Behemoth II likewise gain a reputation to be feared fluff wise 

[VhenRa]

Not sure where you are getting your information from but the Panther is acknowledged by most historians and military experts as one of the best tanks made in wwII.  \

You mean the one where it took 24 hours to do a one hour repair job on a Sherman, the one with no broad angle gunner optics, the one prone to catching on fire and throwing a track on any strenous road march and the error list goes on. Brittle Armor, low turret rotation speed, no TC override on the turret, poor commander optics, extremely poor escape system... the problem with the Panther was that it was a 45 ton tank using engine and transmission more suited for a 30 ton tank. Post War tests by the British determined on average a Churchill (with a much lower road speed) was faster on a strategic level than a Panther because of how much time was lost making repairs to it. Amusingly, the Sherman had as much armor thickness effectively as a Tiger I. I am assuming those are the same documentaries that describe Shermans as Death traps and Ronsons and stuff. Most of those are using a completely biased source that has been repeated dozens of times without anyone doing any critical research since.


But yes, more seriously. There is a whole slew of tanks that fill a similar role. Rommel/Patton, Axel IIC, Manticores, Alacorns, Demolishers, Schreks (Though, a Schrek is more of a Jagdpanther or Jagdtiger)

[pheonixstorm]

Any tanks in 3075 mount a Long Tom Cannon? That would be my pick. Longer range than an AC/20 with better damage potential.

[Sartris]

Any tanks in 3075 mount a Long Tom Cannon? That would be my pick. Longer range than an AC/20 with better damage potential.

The Rommel Howitzer prototype debuted in 3077

[Porkins]

You mean the one where it took 24 hours to do a one hour repair job on a Sherman, the one with no broad angle gunner optics, the one prone to catching on fire and throwing a track on any strenous road march and the error list goes on. Brittle Armor, low turret rotation speed, no TC override on the turret, poor commander optics, extremely poor escape system

But yes, more seriously. There is a whole slew of tanks that fill a similar role. Rommel/Patton, Axel IIC, Manticores, Alacorns, Demolishers, Schreks (Though, a Schrek is more of a Jagdpanther or Jagdtiger)

Oh please, every tank had its long list of problems so the panther is no different, nor is the sherman or anything else.  Pretty sure if most people were in a tank duel with a choice of a sherman vs panther they would take the panther.  As for biased shows I think tank crews talking about their real combat experiences is somewhat more reliable than engineers testing in a lab.

But as you say, that is not the topic. 

I agree with most of your choices except the demolisher - too short ranged to be comparable to the 88 on the tiger.  I always thought of the demolisher being like the old Brummbar except with a turret.

[SteelRaven]

I would think the Demolishes Gauss has enough range 

[Porkins]

I would think the Demolishes Gauss has enough range

The gauss variant was not mentioned, just the tank's name which usually means "standard model" so the ac20's were what came to mind.  But yes the gauss variant would definitely fit the bill for a tiger - slow, long range powerful gun, thick armor. 

Thought I remember seeing a tiger tank in heavy metal vee in the fan directory but maybe I am thinking of something else.

[worktroll]

The Sturmfeuer HG variant makes a good Elefant analog. Unfortunately we don't seem to have any good Nashorn or Marder II/III analogs.

The Hetzer, OTOH ... ;)

[Kit deSummersville]

But yes the gauss variant would definitely fit the bill for a tiger - slow, long range powerful gun, thick armor. 

Reminds me of a Gurty.

[Colt Ward]

The fact that the germans had supply problems does mot make the Panther a bad tank - that is a supply issue.  A Panther in normal condition was considered a "model" tank.

But yeah, the Patton and Rommels are great.  That DI Morgan becomes deadweight BV as soon as you land an engine hit on it with all those energy thirsty ppcs.

The DI Morgan also has a Gauss Rifle version and a LRM version . . . what made the exact comments about a better Alacorn is that it also has a TC tied into those gauss rifles.  You could say the original was a better Schrek, but IMO that would actually be the Morrigu (Laser).

[Porkins]

You're confusing your rules, tanks that take an engine don't have trouble firing their weapons, even energy weapons, due to increased heat build up.

The problem they have is moving.

No I am sorry but you are incorrect.  TWpg 195 for engine hits states energy weapons no longer work.  Been playing the game a long time and had many a tank newtered from this when they have too many energy weapons.

[mbear]

Weird how this changed into "why a WW2 tank sucks/rocks". Anyway...

I'm assuming the OP is looking for tanks that are "benchmark" units for 3075. With that in mind, I'd have to say the Rommel and Patton tanks. Also the Manticore, Partisan, Zhukov, and Myrmidion. I think the Challenger, Ajax, and Mantuefell (sp?) are pretty good as well.

[Porkins]

Ha ha, it's always easy to get off topic when things like that come up.  My bad for starting it and kind of funny that people who were never in that war or piloted one of those tanks can have so many opinions on what sucks/rock.  It's all good.

Back to the stompy robot universe ... nice catch on the Manteuffel.  Didn't even think about that one - probably because I've never used one.  I would think that it would maybe even be closer to the King Tiger, which I do acknowledge as a terrible tank  ^-^

I was thinking of the Myrmidon but it seemed too light to be a comparable to Panthers and Tigers, relatively speaking as its a medium tank on the light end of the spectrum. 

[Black_Knyght]

Weird how this changed into "why a WW2 tank sucks/rocks". Anyway...

I'm assuming the OP is looking for tanks that are "benchmark" units for 3075.

Yeah, kind of got hijacked by opinions and personal perspective rather than actually paying attention to the point of the post.

FACT: Many veteran WW2 tank commanders have unreservedly stated, in numerous documentaries, that IN THEIR TIME those tanks WERE seen as the terrors of the battlefield by those who faced them.

FACT: History and HINDSIGHT have shown that they were flawed, but in their day the DID earn their feared reputation.

Which leads me back again to my the point of my original question - Given their fearsome reputation IN THEIR TIME, what 3075 tank could be seen as equally fearsome and tough? :)

Without nitpicking details that don't apply to the question.. ;)

[Porkins]

If it's "feared" rather than "comparable" then I would agree with VhenRa's choices of Alacorn and Demolisher (either AC20 or gauss variants) as their weapon's load and thick armor are of great concern regardless of the mech you are piloting.  If there's lots of terrain then their speed works against them but I would still be fearful based on the sheer damage they can inflict while being able to handle it being dished back.

Not overly fearful of others like Manticores, Myrmidons and stuff like that. 

[snewsom2997]

Rommel/Patton for the Panther
Gurteltier for the Tiger.

[Colt Ward]

IMO the problem is 3075 had some new really good tanks come out that had not been in many fights nor widespread . . .

Joust
Enyo
Moltke
Royal Von Luckner
Morrigu (Laser)- brought to the IS by the Sharks

[glitterboy2098]

The Panther was simply too heavy for it's own good (only two tons lighter than the IS-2 Heavy Tank), the engine was highly unreliable and had a bad habit of catching fire and the gearbox and the final drives ate themselves alive regularly. Also, the armor was extremely brittle which lead to massive spalling even if the armor wasn't penetrated.

much of the engine and drivetrain issues however stemmed from the nazi use of unskilled slave labor drawn from the concentration camps to work the lines.. it was part of their "extermination through labor" effort, where they used the inhabitants of the camp to work in factories producing weapons and other arms for the nazi's, working long hours in unsafe conditions with little rest or food.
many of the other factory workers not part of the concentration camps program were also slave labor as well, pulled from conquered regions like poland, russia, etc.
both groups of unwilling laborers got to be very good at building equipment that passed inspections at the factory and which seemed fine during tests, but which failed during actual hard use.

so i'd be wary of putting too much stress on bad engineering as a detriment. if they'd been built by properly employed workers motivated to actually do their best work, the late german warmachine would have been a real nightmare to face, and virtually unstoppable by the allies.

[Garrand]

so i'd be wary of putting too much stress on bad engineering as a detriment. if they'd been built by properly employed workers motivated to actually do their best work, the late german warmachine would have been a nightmare to face.

Nonetheless, there is still a "bad engineering" issue with these tanks. The Panther had the transmission & drive train designed for a 30t tank, not a 45t tank it became. The Tiger I was already slightly under powered; the Tiger II was several tons heavier & still used the same engine. Even older tanks like the Pz IV suffered more frequent breakdowns. Added to the Panther (& presumably Tiger II) issues was the fact that if you blew the transmission, you had to remove it through a small plate in the upper hull which also required partial disassembly of the drivers compartment to do so. A transmission swap on a Panther could be an all-day exercise, whereas on the Sherman the entire nose with the transmission could be removed & swapped in a few hours.

I have no doubt that some of these German tanks were very good performers (the Panther, when properly working, was a very good tank, with better mobility than a Sherman or T-34, better protection, better gun, better speed, etc), BUT on the other hand there were some pretty big flaws in its design (IIRC the first & only Bn level assault by Tiger IIs during the Budapest engagement, saw nearly half of the Bn drop out due to mechanical failures in the march up from the assembly area, per the book Sledgehammers). In retrospect the best way to kill Tiger tanks was to force it to engage in a road march of more than 10mi! There was a big reason why the Germans preferred rail transport whenever possible...

Yet many of these tanks had a very outsized impact on battles, but especially on the impressions of the participants on either side.

For those reasons I tend to be pretty skeptical about claims of the "best tank" or "worst tank" especially in the European theater.

Damon.

[Black_Knyght]

Gotta love what geniuses hindsight and history makes of us all. Guess it's lucky for the Germans WE weren't around to face those tanks in WW2, or they might never have been so feared by Allied tankers...

[The Eagle]

Gotta love what geniuses hindsight and history makes of us all. Guess it's lucky for the Germans WE weren't around to face those tanks in WW2, or they might never have been so feared by Allied tankers...

Yeah.  Sure.  I'm trying to imagine the look on the faces of the remnants of the 4th County of London Yeomanry after Villers-Bocage if I told them "Guys, Tiger tanks are poop."

[Porkins]

I highly recommend reading "Armored Thunderbolt" by Steven Zaloga to get a better picture about armored warfare in World War 2. Not only about the Sherman, but also about german tanks.

Thanks for the referral on this book; I will check it out sometime soon.

[guardiandashi]

note most of this is hearsay and stories.

the tiger and panzer were scary as heck to "stock" especially early version shermans.  and to the crews of said shermans they were justifiable scared to run into them.
the fact that the panzer and tiger might have issue driving more than a few miles under their own power, and had horrible strategic movement due to breakdowns and repair issues.

the guns on the german tanks would typically go right through the shermans armor wheras the shermans cannon could only punch through by hitting weak spots, and or certain angles, so ya...

one thing I heard is that 1 tiger? or panther was able to take on and win against 4 shermans consistently... the problem for the germans was that there were always 5 of the things...

[Black_Knyght]

I watched a History Channel documentary about a Canadian unit of Shermans that encountered a single Tiger. Tankers from BOTH sides of that particular encounter were interviewed, with quite a bit of revelation on both accounts.

The Canadian tankers talked about how THEIR 75mm shells just ricocheted off of the Tiger, or shattered completely with direct hits. And by their own accounts they lost 4 Shermans in minutes at the hands of the Tiger.

The Tiger's driver talked about the bell-ringing noise the Sherman shells made when they hit them, and how they jokingly referred to the Shermans as "Klopfers" (knockers/thumpers) because of how noisy and ineffective they were.

Ultimately a Canadian Sherman Firefly knocked out the Tiger's track, and and after losing another tank to the immobilized Tiger they chose to bug out and radio it's location in rather than keep losing tanks. Aircraft later bombed the Tiger, but most of the crew was outside trying to fix it and all but the commander survived.

[worktroll]

A Tiger is certainly a fearsome thing for a man, or a tank, to encounter in the battlefield.

The Tiger dozens of miles behind the battle line with empty fuel tanks, or the Panther dead behind the lines because the transmission blew, again - not so much.

And yes, Shermans had mechanical problems too, to add to their flammability issues. But if you started with 48 Shermans in depot, odds were 40 of them made it to battle. The Germans started with 12 Panthers and 4 Tigers, of which 8 and 3 made it to the line.

Great factual read here - Otto Carius' "Tigers in the Mud". Justifiably fond of the Tiger, despite its shortcomings, but can't say enough bad things about the King or Hunting Tigers.

[Sir Chaos]

A Tiger is certainly a fearsome thing for a man, or a tank, to encounter in the battlefield.

The Tiger dozens of miles behind the battle line with empty fuel tanks, or the Panther dead behind the lines because the transmission blew, again - not so much.

And yes, Shermans had mechanical problems too, to add to their flammability issues. But if you started with 48 Shermans in depot, odds were 40 of them made it to battle. The Germans started with 12 Panthers and 4 Tigers, of which 8 and 3 made it to the line.

Great factual read here - Otto Carius' "Tigers in the Mud". Justifiably fond of the Tiger, despite its shortcomings, but can't say enough bad things about the King or Hunting Tigers.

In your example... the way I heard it, the Germans would have been lucky to 4 Panthers and 1 Tiger to the line.

[ANS Kamas P81]

A big portion of that readiness was the fact you'd have to tear half a Tiger or Panther apart to get at the engine or transmission.  Want to swap the tranny in the Sherman, get a wrench, pop 17 bolts, swap, and done.  Same for the engine in the back.  The Americans also had the extra industrial capacity to provide huge amounts of spares, compared to the Germans who were building entire tanks out of nearly everything they had rather than provide replacement parts.

Tactically, in a perfect setting, the Tiger's a fantastic piece of hardware.  Purely on armor vs armor, and gun vs gun, it wins.  It's also 15-20 tons heavier than the M4, so that's an obvious result anyway.  Apply the situational problems the Germans had with lack of spares, bad designs (interleaved wheels, looking at you), terrible gas mileage (68 miles offroad per tank of fuel) and poor supply situations and the Tiger becomes at best a bunker with a pretty solid gun aaaand that's it.

The King Tiger/Tiger II?  Add another fifteen tons to the Tiger.  Keep the engine.  Enjoy your 10-12mph speed cross-country because of it, not to mention terrible turret rotation speed, and the simple fact that all the armor's on the front...which led to embarrassing moments like this:

"During the Battle of St. Vith a M8 Greyhound armoured car destroyed a Tiger II after getting in behind it on the Schonberg Road, though the commander tried to traverse his turret to engage the M8. The M8 fired three 37 mm rounds into the relatively thin rear armor of the Tiger from only 25 yd (23 m), setting it on fire: "There was a muffled explosion, followed by flames which billowed out of the turret and engine port."

Ballsiest Greyhound crew ever.

[Hptm. Streiger]

The Tiger was a beast mostly in the early war. I don't know how accurate the Tiger in the desert was (good old Panzer Elite) - but a single Tiger did end my US mission tree in its beginning. Lost my first squad mate before i even realized that we came under fire....
Later with material that became worse and worse the Tiger was a waste of resources, it was a industrial war.... but well back to OT.

in 3075 a fear some war machine that is over constructed?

• society/clan
• ferro lamelor 4/6
• ERPPC + Gauss
• TC+Nova CWS

[mbear]

OK. Guys, the Sherman/Panzer info is neat and all, but totally off topic. Maybe we could move that discussion to a new thread in the Off-Topic forum? It's interesting, but not what Black_Knyght had in mind when he asked the original question. Just a request from a fellow Forum-ite.

Edit: In fact, here's a new thread to discuss why the Sherman/Panther/Tiger sucked/rocked. WW2 Tanks: Sherman v. Panther v. Tiger

I haven't had a chance to bring in any comments related to that topic, but please feel free to do so.

[truetanker]

I see the Bulldog more like the Sherman with the Kanga(AC) more a Panther.

TT

[worktroll]

The Myrmidon has to me, a Sherman-like feel, but better quality. The Vedette is my Pzkw IV analog - initially under-inspiring, but over time (and a multitude of variants) ending up pretty darned good.

[Sartris]

It's a little past time, but the Gurteltier is a punch in the teeth. The Challenger XI with dual gauss and a TC will wreck your day and lead a C3 lance. The Demolisher II is not to be trifled with.

BT tanks aren't legendarily tough in the sense that even the ultra-armored MBTs are going to turn into pillboxes after just a modest amount of plinking. Infantry platoons can ambush and brick the mightiest tanks in one salvo. I tend to both prefer and fear something with a little more speed like the Manteuffel A.

[Colt Ward]

The Vedette always struck me as that so-so car high schoolers talk about buying for cheap and then sink a TON of money into to make it what they want (and usually wreck 3 weeks after its customized, insurance does not pay for anything beyond stock and they are left in the red).

Eh, I have wanted to try the Narukami 1C . . . 2 PPCs, Gauss Rifle, 2 AMS and 17.5 tons of Hardened Armor for 240 HP.  Decreases crit chances . . . I would like to try a lance of them against some random FedSuns mech lance like I did the Schildkrottes (Turtles!) against a random FWL medium lance.  The Turtles routed the mech lance in exchange for one immobilized they put down . . . I think two mechs and forced a 3rd to retreat.

[Sir Chaos]

The Myrmidon has to me, a Sherman-like feel, but better quality. The Vedette is my Pzkw IV analog - initially under-inspiring, but over time (and a multitude of variants) ending up pretty darned good.

And the Bulldog is the T-34 - cheap, plentiful, not very good but good enough.

[worktroll]

Testudo for the JS-152 ;)

[SteelRaven]

And the Bulldog is the T-34 - cheap, plentiful, not very good but good enough.

The T-34 was the reason the Germans made the Panther in the first place.

That said, the Bulldog and Vedette are cheaper and more common than the other examples like the Rommel but that's mostly because of the ICE Engine vs Fusion Engine. Manticore is another 60 Ton track vehicle but totally different machine thanks to the Pitban 240 SFE. *Edit* Just occurred to me the Bulldog may have also been inspired by the M41 Walker Bulldog   

Oh, I think this Tank is relevant to the OP
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Tiger

I really wish I found that earlier :D

[Colt Ward]

The Tiger T-12 has the same problem the Enyo does . . . 5t too fat.

[Sir Chaos]

The T-34 was the reason the Germans made the Panther in the first place.

Then either the Manticore or the Rommel/Patton are the Panther in that analogy; if I spend the same money building Bulldogs that you do building Manticores, Rommels and Pattons, I´ll bury you in cheap but useful tanks. I´m going to have an appalling casualty list, but I´ll win the battle.

I wouldn´t compare the Vedette to any these, though. The Vedette and Scorpion would probably be loose equivalents to the Panzer III and Panzer II, with maybe the Po as the Panzer IV.

[SCC]

That said, the Bulldog and Vedette are cheaper and more common than the other examples like the Rommel but that's mostly because of the ICE Engine vs Fusion Engine. Manticore is another 60 Ton track vehicle but totally different machine thanks to the Pitban 240 SFE. *Edit* Just occurred to me the Bulldog may have also been inspired by the M41 Walker Bulldog

Actually FedComGirl crunched the numbers on the Bulldog and found that by replacing the ICE with a SFE and shrinking the tank down to 30 tons, you can save a bunch. I can't find her post right now but re-creating it in SAW gives me a saving of almost 300,000.

[Liam's Ghost]

Actually FedComGirl crunched the numbers on the Bulldog and found that by replacing the ICE with a SFE and shrinking the tank down to 30 tons, you can save a bunch. I can't find her post right now but re-creating it in SAW gives me a saving of almost 300,000.

Huh. I was skeptical at first, so I tried it out. Pretty sweet.  I shall call it the house panther.

[SCC]

I was thinking Terrier might be a better name. And upon further investigation it was Matti who posted it, not FedComGirl. And it should work for other ICE-powered, energy weapon heavy designs, like the Ontos.

[glitterboy2098]

Actually FedComGirl crunched the numbers on the Bulldog and found that by replacing the ICE with a SFE and shrinking the tank down to 30 tons, you can save a bunch. I can't find her post right now but re-creating it in SAW gives me a saving of almost 300,000.

however that requires a 120 SFE.. an engine type that was in high demand during the succession wars due to the plethora of Wasp's and Stinger's.

[Colt Ward]

Sure . . . but it also means that someone should have set up a armor workshop style factory on somewhere like Galatea using those SFE that were replaced with XLs when some mercs upgraded their bugs.