Loaded Question Time

[Goose]

  You've ridden X amount of time, out from the LZ, to set up a perimeter, while the Big Boys go after the Target Actual.

I do mean "ridden," as the Lord High Muckity-Muks have seen fit to provide armed APCs: My question is do you feel reassured or not when said units have a turret?

Oop: Had the silly vowels in reverse …

[Col Toda]

It takes minutes to put up a remote sensor network deployed by VTOL with rocket boosters and a dispenser about  2 Km out monitoring nearly 4 km out. It takes about another hour to go to send teams out and drive metal spikes in trees and put orange paint to indicate the spikes presence.  Should enemy  ECM kill the remote sensor singnal what spikes are no longer detected should indicate proximal location of intuders 

[Syzyx]

It takes minutes to put up a remote sensor network deployed by VTOL with rocket boosters and a dispenser about  2 Km out monitoring nearly 4 km out. It takes about another hour to go to send teams out and drive metal spikes in trees and put orange paint to indicate the spikes presence.  Should enemy  ECM kill the remote sensor singnal what spikes are no longer detected should indicate proximal location of intuders

I think this was a response to another thread?

[Charistoph]

You've ridden X amount of time, out from the LZ, to set up a perimeter, while the Big Boys go after the Target Actual.

I do mean "ridden," as the Lord High Muckity-Muks have seen fit to provide armed APCs: My question is do you feel reassured or not when said units have a turret?

Oop: Had the silly vowels in reverse …

It depends on the environment, what I'm facing, what the drive system the APC has, and what weapons will be mounted on it.  If I don't expect to face any armor, then a turret with MGs is fine on a Tracked APC, but not as much with a Hover.

[Daryk]

I think this was a response to another thread?

No, given his post history that tracks.  He's pointing out the timeline involved with the presented situation, and what you could do with it.

[Col Toda]

Exactly it depends on how custom or crunchy is the campaign . A custom Karnov with jet boosters and a remote sensor dispenser can go out drop a remote sensor and a Kagi or Pal battle armor with the correct mission equipment  2 km out at and between the compass points inside  about 10 minutes  for an LZ perimeter monitor situtation. In coming enemy  has fast TAG using combat vehicles sorti out with Homing Arrow IV or Copperhead rounds to soften  incoming enemy before they hit the LZ where they encounter dug in infantry and heavy tanks hull down  in fortified hexes that take your engineering vehicle  less than an hour to prepare . The romote sensor nework is monitored by either a mobile HQ or communication gear installed in the drop ship or my favorite a single command mech with a C3 Master and a Command Console.  This is doable in about 3050 and after .

As most objective raids land send a force out and return in 8 -24 hours and work because the defenders cannot muster enough concentrated combat power at the point of contact to successfully stop the objective raid .

Using stock units over custom purposed built only just tripled the time to set up the perimeter to just over 30 minutes as it has no jet boosters and has to land or lower by winch a cargo exoskeleton with mission  equipment to dispense both the remote sensor and drive the spikes into trees and have a mobile hq monitor it all . You just have to dedicate part  most likely a Triumph , Excalibuir , or fortress Dropship bay space for it . As the stock solution is available in 3025 with the only difference being instead of Tag armed units going out you have a boomerang spotting plane with a recon camera and 6 long toms shooting at the enemy map board and still the dug in infantry and hull down  tanks at the LZ. All that is doable during the Succession Wars.

Apparently I needed to put out a very comprehensive post about the setting up of LZ perimeter defense and the minimum time required which I thought the thread was about . Stock Karnov is I think about 900 K C Bills comercial exoskeletons with dispenser and mission equipment likely  100 K c bill per suit max . Custom units way more expensive but more than 3 x faster getting the job done thus permitting landing zones physically closer to enemy towns faciilries and fire bases for militia response . Which permit the use of fuel cell combat vehicles which has 1/3 less opererational radius . Nearly all Battletech offensive combat action hinge of speed , combat power at point of contact and logistics. With the correct pre mission situational intelligence you have a good idea of you chances of success, your expected losses and time table for the whole contract going in .

It only truly get exciting when the intel is wrong or too dated . Yes sadly  my most successful unit was combat Engineers with mech and combat vehicle support with a military scientist CO in which every contract was accepted or rejected by the calulas of success and profit margin.

A turret is irrelevant to how fast and effective a perimeter you can set up . It can matter in the LZ defense force.

I prefer a reinforced  company of ( big boys sent out 16 -20 units and about 20 defending the LZ  using an Overlord that sacrifices a company of mechs for combat and support vehicle bay space . So the one Overlord  can perform an objective raid or assault , LZ defense And rapid salvage operations simultaneously.  Offense 2/3 mechs 1/3 combat vehicles  defense  1/3 mechs 2/3 combat combat vehicles  and  a platoon of battle armor so immediate salvage operations upon the conclusion of the battle happens.  The whole point of setting up a vicious LZ defense is to make any attack prohibitively  expensive and to buy time for your attacking force to get back to it .

[Challenger]

Big Metal Safety Blanket

An APC should have a minimum of armament with all round field of fire for the same reason that RW military vehicles carry a GPMG on a pintle mount, as emergency back up in case of an ambush.

Its not that the weapon is expected to be terribly effective (particularly in a conventional fire fight), its just that in the heat of the moment it might be the difference between driving out of the ambush and being killed.

Challenger

[Scotty]

Any APCs that I'd want to actually use are going to either be almost entirely unarmed (MGs or other anti-personnel weapon either forward or to both sides) and a turret would be a big liability both in terms of tonnage and protection (needing to armor it), or they're going to be AFVs in their own right with single big anti-mech weapons like AC/10s in a turret.  Anything in between is too much compromise.

[Daryk]

That's about how I feel about them too.

[Failure16]

To continue the recent echo chamber: turrets on actual APCs (vice IFVs) are not a prerequisite for me, though I wish Battletech had rules for pintle mounts or RWS for sub-1T kit. Just sticking a machine gun on a vehicle with a turret means I have to armor the turret substantially because if the turret goes, so does the vehicle. And on a 10-tonne [already-too lightly] armored fighting vehicle, I can use all that mass to give my hull the protection it so sorely needs to protect the poor, downtrodden dismounts before they get pushed out into this cold, cruel world...

[AlphaMirage]

There are rules for Pintel Mounts (in TechManual) that can carry infantry scale weapons which is sufficient for the lighter APCs which otherwise would have to accept at least a 0.5 ton turret with a 0.5 ton machine gun and 0.5 tons of ammo. That 1.5 tons is pretty big for some anti-personnel weapons (vicious anti-personnel weapons but) when you could instead have a support grenade launcher or machine gun which while inferior against armored targets are good Anti-Personnel weapons. Well APCs shouldn't fight tanks and mechs that's just bad tactics. Side mounted machine guns would make more sense to me than a turret and take up the same amount of tonnage without needing to be armored (they can also soak side crits which is crucial).

It does kind of put them in the weird, are they a mechanized infantry squad or an APC with infantry? position however.

[DevianID]

So a people mover has a different job than an IFV for me.  A people mover I want cheap, fast, and armored.  I need it to get to a safe disembark location behind a hill, dump the troops out, and get out.  An IFV, I want for shooting, and the small infantry it carries is just there to keep people honest.  So a ML scorpion or Goblin, I want that turret as the IFV is getting into the thick of it, and the 1 ton infantry squad disembarks as a side thought.  The heavy hover APC though, I want either no weapons, or an LRM5, or a scattering of mguns.  This is a people mover first, and the secondary weapons for me are to plink with after the job of disembarking infantry.  The turret isnt necessary here, but I wont kick a design away because of a turret.  Turrets do increase your survivability in terms of hit and crit locations, even if their tonnage costs you total armor coverage, so long as you had some armor to start with.

[Goose]

… a turret would be a big liability both in terms of tonnage and protection …

My Fractional Accounting™ Sense is tingling.

[Scotty]

It can keep tingling all the way down to the fan design board, if you really need to scratch the itch.

[RifleMech]

There are rules for Pintel Mounts (in TechManual) that can carry infantry scale weapons which is sufficient for the lighter APCs which otherwise would have to accept at least a 0.5 ton turret with a 0.5 ton machine gun and 0.5 tons of ammo. That 1.5 tons is pretty big for some anti-personnel weapons (vicious anti-personnel weapons but) when you could instead have a support grenade launcher or machine gun which while inferior against armored targets are good Anti-Personnel weapons. Well APCs shouldn't fight tanks and mechs that's just bad tactics. Side mounted machine guns would make more sense to me than a turret and take up the same amount of tonnage without needing to be armored (they can also soak side crits which is crucial).

It does kind of put them in the weird, are they a mechanized infantry squad or an APC with infantry? position however.

I believe Infantry weapons, and Pintle Mounts, only allowed on vehicles small vehicles 4.999 tons or lighter? I also believe that vehicle scale weapons can't be mounted on small vehicles. Not that there's a lot of difference in damage between an infantry machine gun and a vehicular light machine gun. It does mean though that any unit 5 tons or heavier gets stuck with 1.5 tons for MG, Turret, and Armor. Not including Fractional Accounting.

[Colt Ward]

To continue the recent echo chamber: turrets on actual APCs (vice IFVs) are not a prerequisite for me, though I wish Battletech had rules for pintle mounts or RWS for sub-1T kit. Just sticking a machine gun on a vehicle with a turret means I have to armor the turret substantially because if the turret goes, so does the vehicle. And on a 10-tonne [already-too lightly] armored fighting vehicle, I can use all that mass to give my hull the protection it so sorely needs to protect the poor, downtrodden dismounts before they get pushed out into this cold, cruel world...

Saxon APC, and IIRC to a lesser extent the Winterhawk which has a ERSL?

I believe Infantry weapons, and Pintle Mounts, only allowed on vehicles small vehicles 4.999 tons or lighter? I also believe that vehicle scale weapons can't be mounted on small vehicles. Not that there's a lot of difference in damage between an infantry machine gun and a vehicular light machine gun. It does mean though that any unit 5 tons or heavier gets stuck with 1.5 tons for MG, Turret, and Armor. Not including Fractional Accounting.

Ibex, which is a fun looking vehicle I have yet to get a chance to use.

[Daryk]

In the context of this discussion, Fractional Accounting only recovers tonnage from the turret itself.  It still needs to be armored separately... 

[RifleMech]

In the context of this discussion, Fractional Accounting only recovers tonnage from the turret itself.  It still needs to be armored separately... 

The weight recovered could be used for armor though.

[Daryk]

Also true, but if you forgo the turret, that's that more armor for the remaining locations.

[idea weenie]

To me a turret is useful as that way the IFV/AFV is able to direct fire against a target while facing the right direction to run away if it draws attention.

Then again, I'd put an LRM-5 on the Turret and call it good.  Not enough damage to draw attention from something big, but LRMs have enough flexibility to support other units if needed.  Put some more armor on, and you soon have an annoying pillbox that takes far more damage to remove than is worth the trouble.

[Goose]

What's your armor weight, then? Skimping on rear protection seems the only allowable gambit …

[Colt Ward]

To me a turret is useful as that way the IFV/AFV is able to direct fire against a target while facing the right direction to run away if it draws attention.

Then again, I'd put an LRM-5 on the Turret and call it good.  Not enough damage to draw attention from something big, but LRMs have enough flexibility to support other units if needed.  Put some more armor on, and you soon have an annoying pillbox that takes far more damage to remove than is worth the trouble.

Thing is no one in the thread is disagreeing about having a turret for a IFV.  The discussion is a APC, which is typically armed with popguns.  I mean my favorite has a turret- the Blizzard APC- but I could definitely buy the argument that it would be a better APC if the turret did not exist and instead had a forward-facing LRM5.  The design is fast enough that it could angle for a prepatory barrage (because Smoke is a good ammo for APCs) on it's final run in to drop off troopers.  The Saxon APC (primary is a MG) and Winterhawk APC (MG turret, SRMs front).  The Saxon that has a ERML in the turret is a different matter- it has a fusion engine, so it is a decent gun for weight- approaching a questionable acceptance.  But APCs are people movers, so it might just be enough gun to get the crew into trouble.

But IFVs are designed to go against other armored vehicles, while not stacking up against full tank or most mechs, they are designed to support the troops tackling such a target.  They need a turret and it needs armor.

[OatsAndHall]

I don't mount turrets on the few APCs I use. But, that's because they have one purpose; get across the map, dump BA off and run away. But, we don't play vehicle or infantry heavy games; the majority of our BV goes towards mechs or BA. I tend to get eye-rolls when I bring a lance or star of VTOLs these days. Lol.

[Cannonshop]

I don't mount turrets on the few APCs I use. But, that's because they have one purpose; get across the map, dump BA off and run away. But, we don't play vehicle or infantry heavy games; the majority of our BV goes towards mechs or BA. I tend to get eye-rolls when I bring a lance or star of VTOLs these days. Lol.

I dunno, I'd lean into that, and supplement with decently designed tracks just to stir the pot a bit more.

[Colt Ward]

I dunno, I'd lean into that, and supplement with decently designed tracks just to stir the pot a bit more.

Hahah . . . give them a lance of 3/5 Manticore ECs to face.  Or be really mean and go with either Schildkrote or Pixiu- armored motive HPPCs or Stealth Armor Gauss Rifle.

[OatsAndHall]

Eh, I've raised a lot of hell with VTOLs over the last couple of months. I've also been running Karnovs with Elementals for funsies. I still pull them out on the big maps but most of the guys will only play me on a small map, in a 1v1 situation. I had a whole lotta fun with a lance of Savannah Masters spotting for a lance of Cavalry LRM carriers a few weeks a ago.

[Charistoph]

I kind of wonder how many Machine Guns in a turret would make it worth it compared to having a set in each direction for those who don't want a turret?

[Colt Ward]

I kind of wonder how many Machine Guns in a turret would make it worth it compared to having a set in each direction for those who don't want a turret?

It is not just the weight of the machine guns or turret, it is that the armor is being divided over 5 rather than 4 locations.  APCs generally carry infantry or BA, a MG is really about the worst weapon since all you are doing is duplicating the range/damage of the infantry or most BA.  I want to say a few years ago Jellico did an analysis of which locations were most likely to be hit in regards to a discussion between armoring the fore glacis versus a turret, with the statistical result being the turret should not be as armored as the front facing.

The idea of MGs on VTOLs & APCs is for suppressive fire (someone watched Vietnam movies- or the now old show Tour of Duty) for the moment of dismount.  Not something that works in BT like it does IRL- MAYBE in the RPG, I do not know about that set up.

So a MG in a turret is problematic for two reasons- piddly range/damage from the MG and decreased armor for the other facings.  Which is why I suggested the Blizzard, while having a turret which is nice, would be a better design just mounting that LRM5 facing forward so it can pop a smoke volley into the hex it will be dropping the BA/infantry off in for additional cover.

[CVB]

I want to say a few years ago Jellico did an analysis of which locations were most likely to be hit in regards to a discussion between armoring the fore glacis versus a turret, with the statistical result being the turret should not be as armored as the front facing.

This one?

[Daryk]

I think post #15 in that thread is it, yes.

And I'd like to double stamp Colt's distinction between IFVs and APCs.  IFVs should absolutely have a turret.  APCs, not so much...