Why no VTOL heavy APCs?

[I am Belch II]

I thought the Karnovs were more of a modern version of the V22 Osprey.

[Col Toda]

For me a Heavy APC has an 8 ton infantry compartment . Since I liked fielding Kanazuchi Battle Armor with a speed of 1 , I had to come up with a solution . Mine was to scratch build one in a Solaris VII garage in 3058 . TROs catch up with the precieved need with s WIGE in 3075 and many in 3085 . Before a TRO provides you have to make do with scratch builds or repurposed canon like changing the 40 ton cargo compartment on a Buffolo hover Transport into an infantry bay . No one is happy with what the TRO do not provide and when they provide them . For my point of view filling an unprovided for need is the biggest reason to design your own . This has its drawbacks mostly expense . As for a VTOL transport make 100 ton trailer put infantry quarters in it from Aerospace and fly it to where you want it with a TUNBO VTOL that has 112 ton lift capacity .

[truetanker]

Look, first the Cobra VTOL, then the Karnov and Ferret, then the Tonbo and finally the Crane.

In that order, if I miss one, sorry.

What I am saying is we have a 3025 heavy APC VTOL, the Karnov or the Cobra. Original has 14 to cargo, later models has 9 or so tons to play around.

TT

[worktroll]

But they're not the minimalist "spam in a can" approach taken by the Heavy APCs.

Still, it's easy enough to come up with alternatives.

ColToda, consider the stock heavy APC, but dump all the MGs and ammo. That provides the sort of "BA truck" you're looking for on a stock chassis, with easily sourced spare parts ;)

[Daryk]

But they're not the minimalist "spam in a can" approach taken by the Heavy APCs.
*snip*

???

3025 Karnovs have the exact same capacity (6 tons) as the Heavy APCs... the only thing they're missing are the machine guns.

[truetanker]

The Gunship Karnov has 3 ton Cargo, and 2MGs w/  :o 400 rounds!  :o

TT

[Jellico]

Guys' your missing the question which is actually two fold:
1) Why when the original Heavy Hover, Tracked, and Wheeled APC's where designed wasn't there a Heavy VTOL APC designed as well?
2) Why hasn't this been corrected since then?

G'damit. Where's my Heavy Hydrofoil APC?

[truetanker]

G'damit. Where's my Heavy Hydrofoil APC?

Sea Skimmer.

TT

[Weirdo]

The Gunship Karnov has 3 ton Cargo, and 2MGs w/  :o 400 rounds!  :o

TT

I think it's actually more like six or eight MGs. It's great for dashing across the field into the middle of a field arty battery, and wiping out multiple platoons at once.

[JadeHellbringer]

Since I don't see it mentioned anywhere, you should give the Shun a good look. I didn't before doing the VotW article on it a few years back, and now it's a must-have for me. A little pricey for mere 'APC' status, but much, MUCH more likely to actually reach the LZ to drop the troops off thanks to heavy (and stealth!) armor, a cavernous cargo bay, and the ability to call in artillery to help out as well.

[pheonixstorm]

It's probably best to pair VTOLs with Jump Infantry from a fluff perspective, simply because they can use their Jump Packs to disembark in mid-air. I have no idea whether the rules allow them to do this, and you'd probably have to land the VTOL to load the troops up once they're done with whatever mission they were doing. Which leaves it for the Special Forces role, dammit...

Yes the rules allow this. Foot and I think Motorized have to use the zip line rules. Not sure if both are Tac Ops rules or just the zip line.

[Sartris]

I think it's actually more like six or eight MGs. It's great for dashing across the field into the middle of a field arty battery, and wiping out multiple platoons at once.

eight, two per side

the 3055 upgrade variant has the twin MGs, one per side

[Korzon77]

ASF's are VTOL right?  So why not a 20 ton ASF chassis with cargo space for infantry?  It'd be far more durable than your traditional V/stol.

[Nightlord01]

ASF's are VTOL right?  So why not a 20 ton ASF chassis with cargo space for infantry?  It'd be far more durable than your traditional V/stol.

No, I don't believe ASF are VTOL, pretty sure they require prepared strips to take off and land.

[Daryk]

No, I don't believe ASF are VTOL, pretty sure they require prepared strips to take off and land.

Total Warfare. page 87:

Conventional fighters mounting VSTOL equipment may also attempt vertical landings in atmosphere, as may all aerospace fighters.

[Moonsword]

I thought the Karnovs were more of a modern version of the V22 Osprey.

They're really not similar in any sense other than the artwork.  The V-22's speed has a much closer parallel to a conventional fighter or fixed-wing support vehicle with the VSTOL modification, not a VTOL like the Karnov, which is much closer to something like a real world cargo helicopter.  For a really close match to a V-22, use a fixed-wing VSTOL SV, then add the prop modification too.  (With a fusion engine, they don't fuel!)

Total Warfare. page 87:

Take a look at the modifiers on page 86 while you're considering your options for an upcoming game.  ASFs take a +2 on the landing roll for trying it.  Aerodyne small craft - like the Mark VII mentioned up thread - can't make vertical landings.  You also need to consider vertical takeoffs.  Conventional fighters with VSTOL and ASFs take a +2 penalty on those, too.

This is the flip side of the performance differences I mentioned above: VTOLs don't deal with these headaches about landing and takeoff.

[JadeHellbringer]

I admit I don't have the books handy, but I'm also not sure what the rules are on offloading cargo from a fighter. A VTOL pretty much lowers the ramp and the troops come rushing out yelling 'ooh-rah!', but if you land your modified Vandal and tell everyone to get out I'm not sure that they work the same way. (They might, for all I know, but I'm not SURE.)

I'll admit though that my mindset is that if you have such overwhelming air dominance in place that you're using fighter jets as troop transports, you probably don't need to move troops around with this kind of desperation anyway.

[Weirdo]

They do indeed offload the same way as other APCs once they're on the ground. Larger aeros such as Small Craft or DropShips are a bit different, but that's outside the scope of this discussion.

The risks of takeoff and landing, lawn-dart rolls, lack of cover, lack of TMMx the fact that a lot of folks don't understand aero rules and/or view them as a hassle...there's a lot of reasons why someone might prefer VTOLs over aeros for their soccer mom transport needs.

On the other hand, aeros do have advantages. It's safe to assume that your typical aero will NOT have a hit location with only two armor on it. Most troop-carrying fighters are far more heavily armed than any transport VTOL, giving your infantry contingent organic fire support. (For laughs, try keeping the fighters on the ground and using them as rolling assault guns that don't suffer vehicle motive crits.) Aeros have more offloading options than VTOLs, able to land and unload normally, drop jump troops from very low altitude using the rules in TW(think of the "Downloading" maneuver from Wolves on the Border), or drop troops from higher altitudes using the Dropping Troops rules in SO.

As for how many factions actually think this is a good idea...it should be pointed out that while uncommon, there are still multiple troop-carrying fighter configurations or variants out there, from the ubiquitous Planetlifter, Kirghiz and Troika variants, and the purpose-designed Yun, plus any others I've forgotten.

[anastrace]

JH mentioned the Shun, and I have to agree that thing is a boss for carrying troops. Stealth on the way in, drop off your guys and then circle the area lighting people up with your TAG and taking accurate pot shots with those little mag shots. Ever since I saw it, I fell in love with the idea. Damn Capellans get the cool transports. :)

[Daryk]

*snip*
Take a look at the modifiers on page 86 while you're considering your options for an upcoming game.  ASFs take a +2 on the landing roll for trying it.  Aerodyne small craft - like the Mark VII mentioned up thread - can't make vertical landings.  You also need to consider vertical takeoffs.  Conventional fighters with VSTOL and ASFs take a +2 penalty on those, too.

This is the flip side of the performance differences I mentioned above: VTOLs don't deal with these headaches about landing and takeoff.

Aerodyne Small Craft can make vertical landings with the rules in StratOps (pages 72-73), but good luck surviving the experience.  I've been trying to get that fixed for years now...

[SteelRaven]

Someone talked up the Vector not too long ago in a VotW fan article.

[Korzon77]

A big advantage of ASF troop carriers is strategic-- a V/tol isn't going to be going faster than mach one, let alone trans atmospheric.  It may not be an issue in a lot of pick up games, but the ability to have your infantry/battlearmor be anywhere on the planet within 45 minutes is a huge force multiplier.

[Nightlord01]

Total Warfare. page 87:

Heh, that so?

Ahh well, I'll just chalk it up with the other things in teh BTU that make little to no sense.

[Weirdo]

Aero fusion engines are powerful enough that being able to expend a mere 2 thrust points downward completely negates the pull of standard gravity. Basic maneuvering thrusters can deal with half of that with no effort. It's no surprise that a skilled pilot can pull off a vertical landing or takeoff using brute force, but it's still a dicey thing in all but ideal circumstances.

Even without the interference of enemy units, a regular ASF pilot with a perfectly intact bird needs a 9+ to land in clear terrain without damage. You don't want to fail that roll even by one, because every point of MoF means ten damage, and TW says nothing about splitting that up into smaller groups, it's all one chunk. That means even a minor mishap results in a big chunk of armor gouged out, and since most fighters can't take a hit that big without being critted, anything less than a perfect landing brings a real chance of a critical hit to a major system...such as the cargo bay full of infantry that is your current raison d'etre.

Long story short: If VTOL ASFs rub you the wrong way, don't worry. The risks involved means such landings will be even rarer than DFAs if your opponent is smart. If they aren't smart....that's usually good news too. :)

[JadeHellbringer]

Someone talked up the Vector not too long ago in a VotW fan article.

Lampreys are interesting as well. Not nearly as scary as the Hind that it borrows its looks from, but dropping a load of SRMs on someone while unloading the kitchen sink is fun. And it's a lot more available openly than the Shun, of course (which is rare outside Liao space).

[Weirdo]

My favorite big VTOL transport is the Cardinal. The weapons load isn't much to scare mechs or tanks, but everything there is still effective at helping it do its job(which is good, because at only 8/12, it needs all the help it can get). The LB-X is a credible threat to enemy VTOLs and ASFs, the LRM rack can launch smoke to provide cover for your approach, and the APGRs can pin down enemy troops near the LZ. Combine that with solid armor and a truly cavernous cargo bay, and you only need a couple Cardinals to deploy a very serious infantry force.

[SteelRaven]

You can always have your Cardinal or Lamprey escorted by a Warrior or Yellow Jacked.

[Weirdo]

If your Yellow Jacket is closer than two mapsheets away from the enemy, the pilot needs to be sacked for incompetence.

[SCC]

Pretty sure there's a Gauss version of the Yellow Jacket

[Weirdo]

I'm aware of many non-Arrow IV versions. The only use they have is for the pilot to fly to the quartermaster depot and put a hypersonic slug through a traitor to the state. If the pilot actually takes such a Yellow Jacket to a battlefield, then the treason is a conspiracy and he is part of it.

Exceptions are allowed if the pilot was on his way to execute the quartermaster and a battle came to him. High Command is aware that war rarely goes according to plan, and sometimes Yellow Jacket happens.