Tech Retcon List?

[BATTLEMASTER]

How about adding CASE to the list?  Modern MBTs like the M1 Abrams have a version of the system.

[DevianID]

My understanding about the armored ammo storage on the abrams is that if the ammo is hit the tank is destroyed (violently) but the crew lives (but hurt).  CASE prevents the tank from being destroyed in Btech, though it costs your rear armor, and shakes the crew.  So the ammo stowage on the Abrams isnt quite as high tech as CASE.

[RifleMech]

I have wondered about a primitive form of CASE. One that just saves the crew but not the entire vehicle.

[DevianID]

Anything that keeps a vehicle crew alive when the vehicle is destroyed would really help my vehicles in campaign games.  Otherwise getting XP on them is really hard as the crew is so easily killed.

[idea weenie]

I have wondered about a primitive form of CASE. One that just saves the crew but not the entire vehicle.

What if you used the armored component rules to make an armored ammo box, but fluffed it as the armor is angled so it focuses the blast backwards?  Since it would be a prototype the armored component mass would be based on the tons of ammo you want protected, rather than just treating the ammo as one 'component' and getting full protection for free.

The location would lose the rear armor (or other appropriate location), take the same internal damage from standard CASE, but the rest of the vehicle and crew survives?  After the battle the vehicle will need repairs, the crew will need medical treatment, but the both can be recovered.

Part of this idea would be situations where the unit has 2+ tons of ammo being stored, but only one ton in the proto-CASE (or 3+ tons of ammo, and 2 or less tons in the CASE, aso).  That unprotected ammo is used first, then the protected ammo in the proto-CASE.  If the unit gets hit in the unprotected ammo, follow those rules as usual.  If it gets hit in the protected ammo, use the proto-CASE rules.

[RifleMech]

What if you used the armored component rules to make an armored ammo box, but fluffed it as the armor is angled so it focuses the blast backwards?  Since it would be a prototype the armored component mass would be based on the tons of ammo you want protected, rather than just treating the ammo as one 'component' and getting full protection for free.

The location would lose the rear armor (or other appropriate location), take the same internal damage from standard CASE, but the rest of the vehicle and crew survives?  After the battle the vehicle will need repairs, the crew will need medical treatment, but the both can be recovered.

Part of this idea would be situations where the unit has 2+ tons of ammo being stored, but only one ton in the proto-CASE (or 3+ tons of ammo, and 2 or less tons in the CASE, aso).  That unprotected ammo is used first, then the protected ammo in the proto-CASE.  If the unit gets hit in the unprotected ammo, follow those rules as usual.  If it gets hit in the protected ammo, use the proto-CASE rules.

CASE per ton of ammo instead of the entire bin sounds good.  Even if it performs like standard CASE the added tonnage would make it more primitive.

[HobbesHurlbut]

CASE per ton of ammo instead of the entire bin sounds good.  Even if it performs like standard CASE the added tonnage would make it more primitive.

Or reduced ammo count. Merkava Mk 3/4 the tank rounds have their own individual containers to reduce their chance of going off when there's an explosion or fire inside the crew compartment. You can imagine it make the rounds bulkier so there's less rounds in the given space for ammo stowage.

[RifleMech]

Or reduced ammo count. Merkava Mk 3/4 the tank rounds have their own individual containers to reduce their chance of going off when there's an explosion or fire inside the crew compartment. You can imagine it make the rounds bulkier so there's less rounds in the given space for ammo stowage.

That sounds complicated.

[HobbesHurlbut]

That sounds complicated.

Not really? Ammo count reduction is a thing in BT. Primitive Prototype Autocannons, specialty munitions, and so on.

[RifleMech]

Not really? Ammo count reduction is a thing in BT. Primitive Prototype Autocannons, specialty munitions, and so on.

Yes but that's ammo not the added level of protection for the ammo. CASE doesn't change what it protects. What happens if the weapon gets upgraded? Multiple tons of ammo? Uses alternative ammo? .5 tons per ton of ammo instead .5 tons for all the ammo in the location is a lot easier.

[idea weenie]

Yes but that's ammo not the added level of protection for the ammo. CASE doesn't change what it protects. What happens if the weapon gets upgraded? Multiple tons of ammo? Uses alternative ammo? .5 tons per ton of ammo instead .5 tons for all the ammo in the location is a lot easier.

I can see the benefit of doing it this way - each round being protected means the vehicle does not need to be refitted to use the protection.  (Just the loading mechanisms to remove the protective shrouds from each bit of ammo).  Depending on the autocannon (or missile) ammo loading, the protective system would protect an entire 'shot' of ammo, rather than individual rounds (i.e. an LRM-20 will have each packet of 20 rounds protected, rather than each LRM).

Mathematically it is identical:
Half as many shots per ton for individual round protection
vs
one ton of protection for every ton of ammo

For smaller vehicles with only one ton of ammo this would be a useful modification as they do not have the tonnage for a full one-ton protective setup.  You just need to have enough technicians back at the base to load the ammunition into the protective containers so the vehicle can be reloaded properly.

I could even see this extra protection being useful for longer periods, as a vehicle with two tons of protected ammo can get hit in either of the two tons with minimal worries.  A vehicle with 1 ton of ammo and 1 ton of protective equipment might get hit in the protective equipment, ruining that protection (and potentially preventing that ammo from being used).  However, in a strategic game that extra protective equipment is the predecessor to the "1 ton protection for all the ammo" -> "CASE".  The protective sleeve for reach round/clip is a relatively dead-end technology, where further advancements only increase the percentage of each ton of ammo that is actually ammo instead of protective sleeves.

[RifleMech]

I can see the benefit of doing it this way - each round being protected means the vehicle does not need to be refitted to use the protection.  (Just the loading mechanisms to remove the protective shrouds from each bit of ammo).  Depending on the autocannon (or missile) ammo loading, the protective system would protect an entire 'shot' of ammo, rather than individual rounds (i.e. an LRM-20 will have each packet of 20 rounds protected, rather than each LRM).

Mathematically it is identical:
Half as many shots per ton for individual round protection
vs
one ton of protection for every ton of ammo

For smaller vehicles with only one ton of ammo this would be a useful modification as they do not have the tonnage for a full one-ton protective setup.  You just need to have enough technicians back at the base to load the ammunition into the protective containers so the vehicle can be reloaded properly.

I could even see this extra protection being useful for longer periods, as a vehicle with two tons of protected ammo can get hit in either of the two tons with minimal worries.  A vehicle with 1 ton of ammo and 1 ton of protective equipment might get hit in the protective equipment, ruining that protection (and potentially preventing that ammo from being used).  However, in a strategic game that extra protective equipment is the predecessor to the "1 ton protection for all the ammo" -> "CASE".  The protective sleeve for reach round/clip is a relatively dead-end technology, where further advancements only increase the percentage of each ton of ammo that is actually ammo instead of protective sleeves.

The feed mechanism stripping off protection sounds like part of the weapon. I would think that would reduce the rate of fire, in addition to lowering the amount of ammo used. If you can't get your ammo from the factory like that, your techs would have to spend time putting the rounds into their protection. Or stripping them out of it, in order to use them on something else. Plus with reducing the number or rounds, could mean running out of ammo. Imagine a tank with a HRC with 3 tons of ammo using that protection. It'd only have a total of 9 shots. On the other hand. .5 tons of protection per ton of ammo would give the tank 1 ton of protection for 2 tons of ammo with 12 shots. That protection would also still be there if I upgraded the HRC to a AC/5.

[HobbesHurlbut]

The feed mechanism stripping off protection sounds like part of the weapon. I would think that would reduce the rate of fire, in addition to lowering the amount of ammo used. If you can't get your ammo from the factory like that, your techs would have to spend time putting the rounds into their protection. Or stripping them out of it, in order to use them on something else. Plus with reducing the number or rounds, could mean running out of ammo. Imagine a tank with a HRC with 3 tons of ammo using that protection. It'd only have a total of 9 shots. On the other hand. .5 tons of protection per ton of ammo would give the tank 1 ton of protection for 2 tons of ammo with 12 shots. That protection would also still be there if I upgraded the HRC to a AC/5.

I did cited a real life example which is where i got that notion from; the Merkava Mk I-IV tank.

[DevianID]

So something like 'Blowout ammo: when hit, treat as if the ammo bin had CASE.  Only half the normal shots per ton.  In vehicles, all ammo must be Blowout ammo.'

[RifleMech]

I did cited a real life example which is where i got that notion from; the Merkava Mk I-IV tank.

Unless I missed it, Wiki doesn't say anything about protection for individual rounds. Of course, wiki doesn't know everything. Do you have a source for individual protected rounds? Wiki does talk about improved ammo containers to prevent cookoff. That doesn't mean individual rounds are protected though. Just that each bin would be.

It also doesn't answer the question of having to strip off the protection to fire the round. Since the Merkava fire's standard NATO rounds the round would have to be compatible to fit. Wouldn't that rule out stripping protection as the round is fired?

So something like 'Blowout ammo: when hit, treat as if the ammo bin had CASE.  Only half the normal shots per ton.  In vehicles, all ammo must be Blowout ammo.'

So specialty ammo, that's already reduced to 1/2, would be reduced to 1/4? So weapons like the AC/10, AC/20 and HRC would end up with 1-2 rounds per ton?

[DevianID]

So specialty ammo, that's already reduced to 1/2, would be reduced to 1/4? So weapons like the AC/10, AC/20 and HRC would end up with 1-2 rounds per ton?

If you wanted to combine primitive case/blowout ammo with advanced specialty ammo, yes you would get very few shots per ton.  The point of primitive case in my mind is to be worse than CASE.

[RifleMech]

If you wanted to combine primitive case/blowout ammo with advanced specialty ammo, yes you would get very few shots per ton.  The point of primitive case in my mind is to be worse than CASE.

I think I'll go with .5 tons per ton of ammo instead of .5 tons per location.

[Charistoph]

I think I'll go with .5 tons per ton of ammo instead of .5 tons per location.

It would be easier to work with, overall.  If one applies 1/2 ton ammo, it could easily be set up to be equivalent to what was proposed for the Blowout Ammo.

[HobbesHurlbut]

Unless I missed it, Wiki doesn't say anything about protection for individual rounds. Of course, wiki doesn't know everything. Do you have a source for individual protected rounds? Wiki does talk about improved ammo containers to prevent cookoff. That doesn't mean individual rounds are protected though. Just that each bin would be.

It also doesn't answer the question of having to strip off the protection to fire the round. Since the Merkava fire's standard NATO rounds the round would have to be compatible to fit. Wouldn't that rule out stripping protection as the round is fired?

So specialty ammo, that's already reduced to 1/2, would be reduced to 1/4? So weapons like the AC/10, AC/20 and HRC would end up with 1-2 rounds per ton?

Er you checked Wiki? On Merkava Wikipedia Entry under "Merkava Mk IV" section "Tank rounds are stored in individual fire-proof canisters, which reduce the chance of cookoffs in a fire inside the tank." source cited: https://www.army-technology.com/projects/merkava4/
It being Mk IV mean the gun is 120mm. On Mk. 1 and 2, the tank was armed with 105mm and obviously the entry mention that the tank rounds are stored in 6-count containers for these 2 models.

[RifleMech]

It would be easier to work with, overall.  If one applies 1/2 ton ammo, it could easily be set up to be equivalent to what was proposed for the Blowout Ammo.

.5 tons per ton of ammo? Or fraction thereof? I feel like ammo protection is more a part of the tank. It isn't added or removed when ammo is changed.

Er you checked Wiki? On Merkava Wikipedia Entry under "Merkava Mk IV" section "Tank rounds are stored in individual fire-proof canisters, which reduce the chance of cookoffs in a fire inside the tank." source cited: https://www.army-technology.com/projects/merkava4/
It being Mk IV mean the gun is 120mm. On Mk. 1 and 2, the tank was armed with 105mm and obviously the entry mention that the tank rounds are stored in 6-count containers for these 2 models.

I did see that but was that individual bins or individual rounds? It does look like individual rounds have protection. However, it sounds more like each round is in a separate bin. Not that each round has to be stripped before it can be fired. Remember, the tank can use all NATO rounds. Those don't have strippable protection, do they? They're just loaded into the tank's storage bins. Which sound like each bin has a protected space for each round. Kind of like how a Revolver's cylinder has a space for each round, protecting it, which a Automatic has rounds piled on top of each other. I think this system would be more like CASE II compared to CASE.

[Charistoph]

.5 tons per ton of ammo? Or fraction thereof? I feel like ammo protection is more a part of the tank. It isn't added or removed when ammo is changed.

0.5 ton per ammo bin for the "Primitive" CASE (PCASE), but I was talking about allowing 1/2 ton ammo bins in the first place for other weapons besides Machine Guns.  If one considers that 0.5 tons for the ammo and 0.5 tons for PCASE, then it would be the same as a 1 ton ammo bin that has half capacity when considering weight.  Slots would be a different story, of course.

[RifleMech]

0.5 ton per ammo bin for the "Primitive" CASE (PCASE), but I was talking about allowing 1/2 ton ammo bins in the first place for other weapons besides Machine Guns.  If one considers that 0.5 tons for the ammo and 0.5 tons for PCASE, then it would be the same as a 1 ton ammo bin that has half capacity when considering weight.  Slots would be a different story, of course.

Oh okay. Makes sense.

I'd be okay with fractional accounting for ammo too. 

[Daryk]

It is an optional rule in TacOps, and can be enabled in SSW on the front page (in the center near the bottom, IF you have Experimental rules selected).

[Hellraiser]

I have wondered about a primitive form of CASE. One that just saves the crew but not the entire vehicle.

Does CASE save the vehicle?
It still destroys the rear internal structure right?   
And any location on the body of a vehicle destroyed is a dead vehicle, permanently.

I don't recall if there is any sort of exception but I thought Vees were wiped out regardless, no fixing them.

[RifleMech]

Does CASE save the vehicle?
It still destroys the rear internal structure right?   
And any location on the body of a vehicle destroyed is a dead vehicle, permanently.

I don't recall if there is any sort of exception but I thought Vees were wiped out regardless, no fixing them.

Isn't there dead and mostly dead? Without CASE the vehicle is rendered into lots of tiny bits. With CASE there's at least something left to salvage.