How is tank operation different in BT?

[Alan Grant]

Over the years I haven't spent a lot of time really thinking about the experience of combat vehicle crews in Battletech. So I'm looking to plug that gap.

I'm wondering how vehicle operation in Battletech is different than what a tanker in real life might experience. How the technology differences might impact vehicle operations for the crew. For example, thinking about of the more obvious questions. If tankers make use of anything akin to neurohelmet tech. How the inclusion of fusion reactors might impact their experience or necessary tasks as well (like if the reactors require a bit more hands-on maintaining or control than that for mechwarriors). That's just two areas that feel like they beg the question but I'm sure I'm missing other areas.

This could be in RPG terms but I'm also thinking about the details that would matter to a fan fiction writer trying to write a scene depicting a vehicle crew in detail.

[AlphaMirage]

I think there is little need for some advanced neurohelmet, that is basically for stability and aim assist. More likely the gunner and commander have something like the attack helo gun sight that can be slaved to the turret.

The reactor could explain the high crew numbers but I imagine it is pretty modular, just that these modules are super hightech.

I expect hovertanks could incorporate some kind of driving assistance to keep them under control at high speed.

[Lone-Wolf]

And I would like to add the question of how to operate the weapon systems.

I once saw on youtube a video about operating the main gun on an M1 tank.
The shells are in a turret compartment, where the door is open only for less than two seconds. In this time you have to withdraw the shell or your hands / lower arms are hurt or even cut off.
Or do they have autoloaders?

So, in 3025 without CASE it may be the same, but what about later?
CASE pretects the crew so how is the shell transferred to the gun if no autoloader?
Is the shell first put in a seperate department and then handed to the loader?

[AlphaMirage]

I'd expect it would differ by design. The abstraction of Battletech doesn't allow for the advantages of a loader vs autoloader. I expect autoloader is standard but there are some giant turrets on most BT Tanks (a low profile turret being one of those advantages)

There is also far more secondary weapons that might need dedicated gunners.

With so many energy weapons on higher end tanks there is probably a power management crewman and maybe a heat sink specialist in addition to the standard crews.

[Metallgewitter]

On the other hand there are also 1 man tanks like the Savannah Master and the J.Edgar that use fusion engines and in the case of the J. Edgar a missile launcher.
From all the novels it often sounds as if all tanks use some sort of Auto-loader. Which would make sense as the weapons used by tanks are also used ba Battlemechs. Why design special weapons for tanks that are basically the same as the ones in Fighters, Mechs and Dropships? The only difference is that tanks are designed to basically be immune to heat (well except perhaps when immolated in inferno gel) as they can alpha strike every turn

[Failure16]

The J. Edgar is a two-crew AFV. No doubt on that, by rules, or fluff.

All standard ammo-based weapons in the BTU utilize autoloaders. Even including the archaic Rifles, everything is an autocannon or multi-tube missile launcher. The extra crew is ridiculous, brought about by people who knew nothing about AFV operation. It's just the way it is.

[Metallgewitter]

The J. Edgar is a two-crew AFV. No doubt on that, by rules, or fluff.

All standard ammo-based weapons in the BTU utilize autoloaders. Even including the archaic Rifles, everything is an autocannon or multi-tube missile launcher. The extra crew is ridiculous, brought about by people who knew nothing about AFV operation. It's just the way it is.

Really? I remember in the St Ives novels that one St Ives soldier piloting a J.Edgar alone. I might have to read up on that again. I get the bigger crew argument though. You still need a commander, a gunner and at least a radio operator on the bigger tanks. But I think loaders are a part of the past.

[Failure16]

To be fair, I'm going off the one crew-per-15-tonnes rule paradigm and sources like TRO3039 for crewing levels in general and for the J. Edgar in particular. If you know which novel it was in, I will gladly peruse it, but that timeframe/era is not on my radar of things to know intuitively. So, you could well be right, but I'd like to know the context regardless. Cheers.

[Alan Grant]

AlphaMirage mentioned a power management crew role and maybe even a heat sinks crew role.

I could see the vehicle having more of those kinds of roles, rather than loaders.

Do BT vehicles have radar or sensors of some kind? I could see a crew member devoted to that.

This thought tree makes a lot of sense to me. It speaks to the idea that many vehicles have grown in sophistication, required specialized knowledge and roles. While some of them have overcome those issues via automation, yet others, especially those with the physical space for it (the bigger vehicles), have gone the route of including more human bodies rather than automation (or alongside automation).

At the higher end, 75-100 tons, these vehicles might start to feel like you are crewing a small naval vessel moreso than a tank. IF you have a power management person, a sensors operator, a dedicated engine tech, etc. That's what it starts to feel like (in theory).

'Mechs went the route of automating a lot of this stuff so everything could be managed by the mechwarrior, leaving a lot of things entirely in the hands of automation. Vehicles kept more things in the hands of more human bodies. Some automation may still be there, they just may not trust it to keep working through the wear and tear of combat operations. But out of sheer necessity (lack of space) they may rely on it more in lighter vehicles.


To be honest the thing that has surprised me the most about this thread is how... unsettled these issues feel. Do we really not have any canon literature anywhere that covers combat vehicle operations at this level?

I'm still uncertain about basics. Like whether the crews have the tech to "see" outside the hull via helmet tech, or whether they are using old fashioned tank optics.

[Arkansas Warrior]

Schmetzer's Sniper Jones stories Sniper and Panzer, in that order, are very good, and feature the crew of a Schreck.  He describes a three man combat crew, commander, gunner, and driver, with IIRC mention of reactor techs that are left at base when the tank rolls out (so not exactly the rules-standard crew, but kinda).  Snipe Hunt is another good one, featuring the crew of a Pegasus (again commander, driver, gunner, but in this case that's as per the rules).  Some of the Chaos Irregulars stories also feature a J. Edgar crew of two. Any of those would be good reading.

[The Wobbly Guy]

Canon sources include the 2 men crew of the Carnivore tank Fraticide - just driver n gunner.

Some of this stuff was discussed in the thread on how the Clans conduct their ToP for combat vehicle crew.

[worktroll]

The J. Edgar is a two-crew AFV. No doubt on that, by rules, or fluff.

The extra crew is ridiculous, brought about by people who knew nothing about AFV operation. It's just the way it is.

IIRC, the original FASA crew who wrote BattleDroids/BattleTech included a bunch of ex-Navy ex-Carrier types, which I think does bleed through in a number of areas.

[Arkansas Warrior]

IIRC, the original FASA crew who wrote BattleDroids/BattleTech included a bunch of ex-Navy ex-Carrier types, which I think does bleed through in a number of areas.

I wonder if 40k didn’t influence it as well.  I think a Baneblade has a crew of about 10.  Even a Leman Russ has a crew of 6.

[Ghaz]

I wonder if 40k didn’t influence it as well.  I think a Baneblade has a crew of about 10.  Even a Leman Russ has a crew of 6.

Or it could be real life.  For example, the Tank, Infantry, Mk IV Churchill had a crew of five (commander, gunner, loader/radio operator, driver, co-driver/hull gunner) and the Panzerkampfwagen VIII Maus would have had a crew of six (commander, gunner, 2 loaders, driver, radio operator).

[Ruger]

Or it could be real life.  For example, the Tank, Infantry, Mk IV Churchill had a crew of five (commander, gunner, loader/radio operator, driver, co-driver/hull gunner) and the Panzerkampfwagen VIII Maus would have had a crew of six (commander, gunner, 2 loaders, driver, radio operator).

The largest portion of larger light tanks and virtually all the medium tanks (and maybe heavy tanks) from the 30’s through the early 50’s I’ve read about had crews of five.

Tanks from WW1 had even larger crews, with the German A7V requiring crews of 18 to 25 EACH. The British Mark 1-Mark V tanks had a more reasonable crew complement of about 8 each.

Ruger

[Metallgewitter]

To be fair, I'm going off the one crew-per-15-tonnes rule paradigm and sources like TRO3039 for crewing levels in general and for the J. Edgar in particular. If you know which novel it was in, I will gladly peruse it, but that timeframe/era is not on my radar of things to know intuitively. So, you could well be right, but I'd like to know the context regardless. Cheers.

That should be Threads of Ambition. The character is a young St Ives Mechwarrior candidate who gets demoted to tanker and if I remember correctly he settles for a J.Edgar because he wants to keep the "sole pilot" feeling or something like that.

While we are on WW2 tanks: French tanks were infamous for having only 2 or 3 men crew with the Commander pulling double or triple duty as commander, gunner and loader.
A same issue had the Soviets with their T-34 with the commander doing two jobs which was corrected with the T34-85

[Failure16]

Listen to what you are all saying: In the 31st Century, war has progressed to somewhere between 1917 and 1942. I think the BTU can do better than that.

Worktroll has the right of it, at least in fundamentals. I have heard the same rumors, but can in no way corroborate it.

I wonder if 40k didn’t influence it as well.  I think a Baneblade has a crew of about 10.  Even a Leman Russ has a crew of 6.

Warhammer 40K did not come out until later, though, of course, the actual BT vehicle-crewing/staffing rules came out much later yet again. I doubt it, though. But anything in WH40K is ridiculous insofar as a correlation between our world and theirs.

[Failure16]

That should be Threads of Ambition. The character is a young St Ives Mechwarrior candidate who gets demoted to tanker and if I remember correctly he settles for a J.Edgar because he wants to keep the "sole pilot" feeling or something like that.

Thanks. I'll look into it. Much appreciated. But we know from other sources that is an outlier that should very well have been caught by the editor/factcheckers, even back then. I mean, try to wrap your head around the concept of a hovercraft travelling at 150 kph with a turret, all controlled by a single trooper. It certainly makes the Locust seem easy to control and fight.

[Cannonshop]

Over the years I haven't spent a lot of time really thinking about the experience of combat vehicle crews in Battletech. So I'm looking to plug that gap.

I'm wondering how vehicle operation in Battletech is different than what a tanker in real life might experience. How the technology differences might impact vehicle operations for the crew. For example, thinking about of the more obvious questions. If tankers make use of anything akin to neurohelmet tech. How the inclusion of fusion reactors might impact their experience or necessary tasks as well (like if the reactors require a bit more hands-on maintaining or control than that for mechwarriors). That's just two areas that feel like they beg the question but I'm sure I'm missing other areas.

This could be in RPG terms but I'm also thinking about the details that would matter to a fan fiction writer trying to write a scene depicting a vehicle crew in detail.

How many guys do you need to fix/break track in the field? how many do you need for security while the crew are doing basic PMCS maintenance?

Consider this: Abrams has a main gun (two guys-gunner and loader), a driver's position, and a commander.

Pretty much the same layout as the M-60, late model M-48...but the M-47 had a bow machine gun in addition to the coax and the turret-roof external mounts (which require either a cupola, or an open hatch for the commander and loader to operate).

every additional gun requires maintenance, just like every other part of the machine, and not just rear-area or depot level maintenance, but the basics when you're in the field.   Failure to maintain your shit gets you killed.  Parked, with hatches open, in the field makes you vulnerable, it's good to have overwatch, and it's good to have extra hands for jobs like replacing track plates or stringing your tracks back together and replacing the pins, because that's hard-ass work, and you're not always going to be able to do it with a nice overcoat jacket of friendlies to deal with random encounters.

same would likely go for wheeled vehicles-tyres are HEAVY, especially the kind that are rated to carry the kind of loads BT armored vehicles impose, and you don't always have benefit of a HMMTT with a crane-sometimes you have to do it with the really primitive tools in the stow bins, it's nicer if you don't ALSO have to be keeping an eye out for that squad of enemy troops who got separated or lost and are looking to kill you and steal your ride.

just sayin', sometimes the reasons aren't instantly apparent because Battletech glosses over things like 'making field repairs so you don't die'.

[Maingunnery]

I can see the point of having the extra crew onboard to be astech/security/trainees.

[Praetorian Hard]

And I would like to add the question of how to operate the weapon systems.

I once saw on youtube a video about operating the main gun on an M1 tank.
The shells are in a turret compartment, where the door is open only for less than two seconds. In this time you have to withdraw the shell or your hands / lower arms are hurt or even cut off.
Or do they have autoloaders?

So, in 3025 without CASE it may be the same, but what about later?
CASE pretects the crew so how is the shell transferred to the gun if no autoloader?
Is the shell first put in a seperate department and then handed to the loader?

The door separating the primary ammo from the crew on an M1 is operated by the loader, there’s a switch they bump with their knee. As the loader moves to push the round into the breach the switch is released and the door closes. As for CASE I’ve always thought of it as nearly identical to what the Abrams currently has. If the ammo cooks off the blast goes out the back of the turret instead of into where the crew is. That separation can be achieved with a human loader or an auto loader. BT universe worked that out with mechs and certainly would apply that auto loading tech to combat vees.

[paladin2019]

I wonder if 40k didn’t influence it as well.  I think a Baneblade has a crew of about 10.  Even a Leman Russ has a crew of 6.

Leman Russ makes sense at up to eight. Basic crew: driver, gunner, commander. Then the bow gunner. A loader or two if the main gun requires them and the exact configuration of the ammunition. Then a gunner for each sponson. It's a lot of guys, but the tank can do a lot of stuff. EDIT : This really means BT needs to revisit the crew numbers. 1/15 tons is not as useful as one per gun position plus a driver, loaders as needed, and maybe a separate commander (based on the developing state's philosophy on commander and gunner vs. commander/gunner). Beyond fluff and campaign/RPG considerations, this is potential quirk territory; a tank with multiple weapon locations might be able to engage multiple targets without the multiple target modifiers so long as they are not engaging multiple targets with weapons mounted in the same location.

RE: operator-level maintenance. Make it happen with the crew positions that you need to operate the tank. You don't get extra bodies with no combat job riding in the tank just to fix it. It's why bow gunners went away when we found out what a bad idea bow guns really are; co-driver/radio operator isn't a legitimate combat task in the tank that justifies getting another trooper schwacked with the tank.

RE: sensor operators, etc. If these functions require dedicated personnel rather than being automated assistance to the crewman who needs it, they are poorly designed. A sensor should cue the commander and/or gunner to a threat, not require another body to monitor the raw data, interpret it, and then tell the crewman who can do something about it. The same with "heat management". If I have to monitor my tank's temperature gauge, the tank design sucks.

[paladin2019]

To expand on the crew bit, let's take Failure16's avatar, the cover of Record Sheets Vol. 5. Such a tank would, at a minimum, require a driver and gunner. It has a MG mounted in the bow, requiring a second gunner. And the illustration shows two personnel on top. If they are not enemy infantry attempting to assault the tank, they are likely the tank commander and either an infantryman coordinating with him or the mechwarrior from the zapped Wolverine hitching a ride. While a commander gives us the same 4 man crew 1/15 tons does, it is a more logical methodology. Using the same methodology, the same-weight Maxim would arguably have up to 5 gunners as well as a driver. A commander would be absolutely essential in coordinating such a beast.

As a quirk, this crew arrangement could mean the MG could engage a different target than the turret weapons without invoking a secondary target modifier on the attack roll. Such a quirk might be numerically rated at 2-5 as the number of facings that can fire without penalty to restrict the aforementioned Maxim from deathblossoming willy-nilly.

[RifleMech]

I think there's a variety of crew sizes from WWI tanks with lots of crew to high tech tanks with just one crew member. The number of crew vary depending on the size and tech level of the tank. Modern lighter tanks would just have the one crew member with automated turrets like the one on the Gabriel or slaved to the pilot's helmet like the one on the Warrior. Bigger tanks would add more crew as they increase in size, starting with a gunner, then a commander and a com/sensor officer and additional gunners. How many gunners depends on the targeting system. Lower tech tanks end up with more gunners per weapon or facing. For modern combat vehicles, I think some of those extra gunners double as replacements for other crew in case of injury. Other gear, like com equipment add extra crew.

[AlphaMirage]

I put my philosophy down in my Point Barrows guide (link in sit below). Battletech tanks are very explicitly less advanced than the mechs. That is true in sensors, heat capacity, environmental systems, and primary power plant in most cases.

They do have two advantages though; being able to easily engage multiple targets without penalty (using it's extra crew) and the option to incorporate exotic motive systems.

My thoughts were there is a primary gunner that runs the turret and an assistant gunner that runs everything else (side and front mounted weapons). Having an onboard engineer would make sense to maintain the fusion power plant right behind you while in battle with the absence of the DI computer.

Energy management could be a very key part, power amps and heat sinks are not presumed to be automated. Plus someone is executing some kind of in battle repair since she's me of the critical effects are one turn disabling of a weapon.

[Metallgewitter]

Heat capacity? For one tanks in the BT universe are designed to never overheat. A tank with ballistic weapons doesn't even need heatsinks as the heat is vented outside unlike a Mech whose heat is build up inside and needs heatsinks to reduce it. But there is also a downside in terms of space: a tank with energy weapons needs enough heatsinks to fire it's entire complement of weapons at once. Which means more heatsinks which means less tons for armor (the Schrek PPC carrier says hello). Plus unlike Mechs tanks can't use the advanced double heatsinks. That is probbaly what you meant right? And power amplifiers are usually only needed when you mate energy weapons with an ICE engine (like the first Ontos) Though an onboard egineer would make sense as a commander probably hasn't the knowhow on how to monitor the engine and power circuits.

[AlphaMirage]

Yeah I know all that, was looking for potential alternative crew positions to bulk out to the 7 in order to add flavor. There are some other ICE tanks with lasers to, the Ontos was the one I used as an example.

[Weirdo]

I often think about crew numbers when looking at the M1 Marksman series, which TacOps gives a crew of seven. This is what I've got as a wild guess:

Commander
Driver
Main Gunner(focused on the Gauss Rifle)
Loader(not hand-loading stuff, but operating/monitoring the various autoloaders)
Gunner's Mate(handles all the other weapons, especially when not firing at the same target as the Gauss)
Driver's Mate(co-driver, plus adjusts the suspension, track, etc in anticipation of upcoming terrain)
Engineer(monitors the reactor and all other systems, also assists with comms and sensors)

[Alan Grant]

I'm still quite shocked this is so unsettled in the BT universe. I mean canon sources.

But I guess given the lack of canon facts. I'll contribute to the speculation game...

Couple roles I can easily see:

Navigator/Pathfinder: Like driver but different. While the driver is dealing with immediate situation awareness around the vehicle, the navigator/pathfinder is looking more at maps and other directional tools and providing a more forward-looking plan for the driver to follow.

Imagine the driving directions provided by a smartphone, but it's a person telling you the directions. That's the Navigator/Pathfinder.

I know computer games aren't real life or even Battletech, but I've found myself doing this when playing military games that have multi-crew tanks. If the player driving the tank doesn't know the map, another player in a different crew position starts eyeballing the map and providing directives on where the driver should take us. That includes details like where to turn. What road to take, where to cross a river at, etc. So the driver's nose isn't stuck in the game map and they can actually watch the road (and watch out for mines, trees etc. )

We know Battletech technology is capable of pegging waypoints on a map. But I'm not sure it's as good at actually finding the best way to get from A-Z. This can be particularly problematic for a tank given the terrain restrictions.

In smaller vehicles, the commander fills this role. In larger ones, I can easily see it going to another person.


Sensor Operator: The tech being similar to BattleMechs, so you are bringing something akin to radar in the mix. But that would give you an extra brain to sort through the messiness. The mechwarrior games love to simplify things and identify enemies for you and cut through all the extra stuff so you don't have to think about it. You don't have to figure out if the movement from a civilian vehicle is an enemy or not, or if the heat coming off a geothermal power plant vent is a hostile.

But I think the reality is actually probably a lot harder. Occasionally the Battletech universe has even called this out by getting mechwarriors confused in odd terrain or confused by odd signals. Sometimes they use this like a plot device in novels and sourcebooks. So, devoting a person to this makes a lot of sense to me.

To me the above two roles become akin to luxuries. They are actually nice to have, welcomed additions to the crew. They free up the driver and commander to focus on other things. If you have the space to have them.

[The Eagle]

I always assumed that tanks don't have the same level of sensor suite that 'Mechs do, and that part of that is why tanks are less expensive to purchase and maintain.  Radar may be an old technology as of the 31st Century, but it's finicky.  I know from working with a JTAC team directing a JSTARs in Iraq that radar can pick up a LOT of stuff that you don't particularly want to look at, and any radar looking at the ground is even worse that a radar looking at sky.  Automation can screen some of the clutter out, but now you're adding even more to the expense.  Start throwing in other sensors like MAGRES and you're looking at a LOT of expensive and delicate equipment.

The extent of vehicle sensor suites, in my mind, would be tried-and-true equipment like rangefinders or the short-range incoming early-warning systems like Trophy.