Loaded Question Time

[Paul]

Turrets might cause an APC to fight something. This is a mistake.

APCs should be carrying personnel while being armored. Fighting's not in the job description, and any weight sent to the turret makes it less good at being armored, less good at being fast, or less good at carrying personnel. Or any combination thereof. If you have 3 jobs, try not to suck at more than 1.

Also making sure it has no meaningful firepower means the enemy has a reason not to shoot it, provided they have other stuff to shoot that brought guns.
Like an APC that was designed badly. (Those probably have a turrets)

Good APC:
- Move a useful-sized infantry unit
- Be fast
- Have a ton of armor so the enemy needs to invest a pretty decent amount of firepower to get a kill*

* And they won't unless you made the APC too easy to kill. In which case it was just a PC, wasn't it?

[Charistoph]

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

And then the question becomes, how much makes it an IFV?

SRM-2s and MGs in all directions with an SRM-6 in a top mounted turret with forward and rear-facing LRM-5s, and a full platoon of ConvInf?

[Dapper Apples]

can't put a turret on a Karnov :/

[Daryk]

Well, you COULD mount a chin turret, but you really shouldn't... 

[Kovax]

The weight of the vehicle and intended role both play important parts in the decision.  If it's ONLY to get troops from Point A to Point B, then 10 tons and no weapons (meaning no turret) is likely to be the optimal solution.  If more armor and/or cargo/infantry is needed than 10 tons can support, then I would go with a heavier APC and invest a couple of tons into weapons (forward facing MGs, SRMs, or LRMs) to provide some support for the infantry while they're disembarking and moving into cover, or possibly a turret with either a pair of MGs or an SRM-2 rack.

I can DEFINITELY see some utility in having at least one vehicle in the formation with a turret and a weapon capable of outranging most typical infantry weapons (SRMs, LRMs, or an AC).  Note that an MG may not outrange infantry rifles, but an infantry platoon needs to at least think about the implications of charging an APC with an MG facing them.  If your rifles are in range of a target, so is their MG.  One is probably not enough of a threat, but a pair of them gets a bit scary for unarmored or lightly armored grunts.  In later eras where BA is more prevalent, such light weapons are of little use, so you're better off with unarmed APCs and a well-armed escort (with a turret).

Then you have IFVs, which are supposed to hang around to provide fire support for the troops they just disembarked.  In that case, a turret is a very good idea, and the weight of the vehicle will need to be at least 20 tons bare minimum, if not substantially more.

[The Colour Red]

My question is do you feel reassured or not when said units have a turret?

Is the loaded question here whether the turret has ammo in it?

[Goose]

Soooo what I think I'm hearing is "In the absence of moral rules, MGs are all-but dead weight."

And I do mean MGs, as I think MWO has ACs depicted properly: I don't recon missiles make the right warning sounds …

[Nikas_Zekeval]

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?

A pair in each direction is 4 tons, not counting ammo.  Vs a pair in a turret is 1.5 tons.  2.5 tons is 40 points of standard armor, probably far more up there than any other facing.  Or make it a quad pack of MGs, and still have 1.5 tons of turret armor

Turrets might cause an APC to fight something. This is a mistake.

I'm recalling The Pentagon Wars.  Maybe a sign "I'm a battle taxi, don't shoot me!"?

Shit happens, weapons are there when the shit hits the fan.  Plus deterrence, an enemy will be far more bold in the ambush if they only have to worry about that armor brick running them over, or infantry coming out.  Vs some anti-infantry weapons from the vehicle being added to the party.

Actually my cheap self-defense turret if you have enough tech for it?  On a fusion engine IFV, 2 MLs and 2 SPLs.  The Pulse lasers are machine guns without the ammo needs or explosiveness, and a bit better on hard targets in a close range ambush.  The MLs mean Bugs and light raiding vehicles have to at least stand off a bit or be willing to take some hits to take you out.

[Colt Ward]

Actually my cheap self-defense turret if you have enough tech for it?  On a fusion engine IFV, 2 MLs and 2 SPLs.  The Pulse lasers are machine guns without the ammo needs or explosiveness, and a bit better on hard targets in a close range ambush.  The MLs mean Bugs and light raiding vehicles have to at least stand off a bit or be willing to take some hits to take you out.

But does that 4 tons of weapons, plus turret weight, plus armor weight on turret- with amount of armor being finite- compensate for not going as fast or having thinner armor on the 4 facings?

Or even keep the 4 tons of weapons (just face them)- is it worth dividing the armor in 5 locations, one of which can be hit from all sides, and perhaps not going faster?

Further, you are again design-creep'ing your vehicle from APC to IFV/ISV.

[Daryk]

2.5 tons of armor is enough to be PPC-proof in four directions, not 5.  Not even 3 tons gets you there.  THAT is the problem with turrets on really light vehicles (which is what APCs should be... IFVs can be a bit heavier).

[Paul]

2.5 tons of armor is enough to be PPC-proof in four directions, not 5.

I agree that's a big deal, and worth a lot more than a MG that no one cares about that might be tasked to kill APCs.

really light vehicles (which is what APCs should be...)

I'm curious about the reasons you have in mind for that classification.

Here's some I can think of:
- Can drive over more bridges. Not really an issue in BT, but maybe it is?
- Cheaper. Desirable, but so is seeing them come back. If we double the tonnage and spend it all on maintaining speed and adding armor, that's worth something too?
- Easier to transport interplanetarily, but also using planetary transport like planes, trains, Small Craft, short hop DropShips.

That's it for me. I feel BT kind of misses a 30 ton armor brick whose only job is to move a platoon. No firepower to speak of, so no one bothers to shoot it because the odds of killing it (in a single salvo) are close to 0, and you have other stuff to shoot. Light and """Heavy""" APC's are far too easy to kill, it requires a very minor investment in firepower.

[Daryk]

Agreed... the closest we have in canon is the Goblin, an armor brick that usually only carries a squad, but the Kurita variant carries rather more...

[Paul]

Agreed... the closest we have in canon is the Goblin, an armor brick that usually only carries a squad, but the Kurita variant carries rather more...

Yep, and there's good reason to kill those things fast. It's an IFV.
A Goblin that converts just about all weapons mass to armor would be a great APC. The % of it coming back from a mission would be very high.

[Daryk]

And 4/6 is fast enough to make it worthwhile.  Hence my various commissions from Plog... 

[Nikas_Zekeval]

But does that 4 tons of weapons, plus turret weight, plus armor weight on turret- with amount of armor being finite- compensate for not going as fast or having thinner armor on the 4 facings?

Or even keep the 4 tons of weapons (just face them)- is it worth dividing the armor in 5 locations, one of which can be hit from all sides, and perhaps not going faster?

Further, you are again design-creep'ing your vehicle from APC to IFV/ISV.

Four tons of weapons is only one more than a Blizzard mounts, with it's LRM.  True you'd need to switch it out to a fusion engine, but a fusion engine of the same weighting would need only a half ton of extra ballasting to meet the minimum, and still be a ton lighter than the ICE engine.  So I won't have to reduce armor or troop capacity.

And twin MLs and SPLs are about the firepower of a "Black Blizzard" escort (2 SRM-4s, 2 MGs) save it lacks the ECM.  So rather than one priority target?  All the Fusion Blizzards can have the same close in punch.

[Colt Ward]

Never said the Blizzard having a turret was ideal, there are reasons though that I like it in campaigns- which starts with availability.

Has to be SOMETHING fast and armored with popguns.

[Nikas_Zekeval]

But does that 4 tons of weapons, plus turret weight, plus armor weight on turret- with amount of armor being finite- compensate for not going as fast or having thinner armor on the 4 facings?

Or even keep the 4 tons of weapons (just face them)- is it worth dividing the armor in 5 locations, one of which can be hit from all sides, and perhaps not going faster?

Further, you are again design-creep'ing your vehicle from APC to IFV/ISV.

If you want the most efficient people mover, and if adding weapons is a 'temptation to fight instead of run'?  Then why not take things to the logical conclusion, and strip all armor?  After all armor is a temptation to stick around in a firefight because "you can take it" and not immediately run for the hills.

Or just say anything over 2.5 to 3 tons, 10 to 12 points of armor on each facing, is "wasted tonnage" because 10 to 12 points will see you through an infantry ambush and give you time to deploy troops.  And APCs shouldn't be fighting anything heavier.

A small but effective tonnage of weapons is on there for the same reason the armor is, because in combat the enemy gets to vote too.  And they don't care if your doctrine is tanks don't fight tanks, tank destroyers fight tanks.  If their tanks spot your tanks, they are going to engage, and yelling "no fair, you're supposed to fight this other guy!" doesn't carry much weight.

Also in cases where you have to scoop up your infantry and run?  Turrets offer a Parthian Shot option, forcing the enemy to be more cautious in their pursuit rather than getting a free shot into the back of a fleeing enemy.

[Colt Ward]

A small but effective tonnage of weapons is on there for the same reason the armor is, because in combat the enemy gets to vote too.  And they don't care if your doctrine is tanks don't fight tanks, tank destroyers fight tanks.  If their tanks spot your tanks, they are going to engage, and yelling "no fair, you're supposed to fight this other guy!" doesn't carry much weight.

Also in cases where you have to scoop up your infantry and run?  Turrets offer a Parthian Shot option, forcing the enemy to be more cautious in their pursuit rather than getting a free shot into the back of a fleeing enemy.

The last is the only thing in favor- and as I said this comes from someone who likes to use the Blizzard which is pretty much built for that purpose.

The question is not about having weapons- because I can fix their location- it is the weight of the turret mechanism and the required redistribution of armor to cover that turret which can be hit from every facing.

[CVB]

What BT AFVs are missing are Remote Weapon Stations, small unmanned turrets that don't cause the whole vehicle to die when they are destroyed.

[Daryk]

If you want a Parthian shot option, a rear-mounted RL-10 is less tonnage than mounting anything in a turret.

I did a whole thread on Remote Weapons Stations (link in my sig block, comments welcome)...