Stingray Light Tank

[Retry]

The Stingray is a Light (technically, Ultralight) tank designed to be air-mobile using 30-ton or heavier VTOLs like the Wyvern or the Garrot via lift hoists, to provide mobile supporting fire for light formations like air-mobile infantry.

The XLE is essentially an "elite" variant and costs as much as a standard medium tank.  The far more common SFE manages to match the 10-ton-heavier Scorpion tank in durability and firepower, at the cost of a hefty C-Bill hike.

Code: [Select]

Stingray Light Tank XLE
Mass: 15 tons
Movement Type: Tracked
Power Plant: 120 XL
Cruising Speed: 86.4 kph
Maximum Speed: 129.6 kph
Armor: Heavy Ferro-Fibrous
Armament:
     1 Light PPC
     1 Small X-Pulse Laser
Communication System: Unknown
Targeting & Tracking System: Unknown
Introduction Year: 3075
Tech Rating/Availability: E/X-X-E-X
Cost: 918,275 C-bills

Type: Stingray Light Tank
Technology Base: Inner Sphere (Experimental)
Tonnage: 15
Battle Value: 539

Equipment Mass
Internal Structure 1.5
Engine 120 XL 3
     Cruising MP: 8
     Flanking MP: 12
Heat Sinks: 10 0
Control Equipment: 1
Power Amplifier: 0
Turret: 0.5
Armor Factor (Heavy Ferro): 79 4

Internal
Structure Armor
Value
Front 2 20
R/L Side 2/2 15/15
Rear 2 9
Turret 2 20

Weapons
and Ammo Location Critical Tonnage
Trailer Hitch Rear 0 0
Light PPC Turret 2 3
Small X-Pulse Laser Turret 1 1
Targeting Computer BD 1 1

Variants:
SFE- As Stingray (XLE), but with a Small Pulse Laser instead of the SXPL, standard armor (15 points front/turret, 12 points sides, 10 points rear), and a 75-rated Standard Fusion Engine instead of the 120 XLE.

[kaliban]

When I see this little wonders, I question myself: "Why do the people waste time with BattleMechs?"

If you consider Fusion and XL Fusion widespread available, it certainly makes sense to make small vehicles with energy weapons. They carry much more firepower than an equivalent size 'mech and fragility is compensated by numbers. As long small Fusion Engines are not so expensive you keep cost at a reasonable level. And, in theory, you can have only one crew member per unit.

[Luxan]

When I see this little wonders, I question myself: "Why do the people waste time with BattleMechs?"

Because trading tank casualties at a 4:1 ratio with 'mechs is demoralizing?  :-\

[KaiserDunk]

When I see this little wonders, I question myself: "Why do the people waste time with BattleMechs?"

Because 'Mechs have better all-around mobility?

Because of the Rule of Cool?

[kaliban]

Because trading tank casualties at a 4:1 ratio with 'mechs is demoralizing?  :-\

If it was not just a game, I could agree with you

[kaliban]

Because 'Mechs have better all-around mobility?

Because of the Rule of Cool?

If a few maps you may have issues with tracked vehicles, but you can combine with other vehicles types and infantry. You don't really need 'mechs due to the terrain.

Rule of cool? Yeah, should be the main reason many people take this in consideration  (me too, some times. Mech miniatures look nicer than tanks)

Savannah Masters swarm is regular example.

[Rockjock]

I love this as a Star League era militia unit.  I know there were no Light PPCs back in the day, but the high level flavor of basic tech fits that well for me.


I think a lot of the in game is more the feudal side of things.  As a leader I  can have 4 mechwarriors and their families loyal to me easier then I can have 16 or 32 vehicle tank or tankette crewmen I trust.   

This is basically like the Clan invasion.  A star of Clan heavies can't beat a battalion of IS heavies all at once, but it can beat it piecemeal a lance or two at a time.

Assault mobility?  Mechs are droppable, and can go underwater, while also being potentially jumpable(I'm ignoring Kangas).  In game they are more repairable supposedly. 

Defending militia in any era should have lots of armor and infantry, probably dug in and able to win against a comparable C-Bill amount of attacking mechs.  The mech advantage is to concentrate their assault where and when they want to via terrain.  More often than not a company of mechs hits a company of vees at a time, withdraws instead of facing a huge numerical disadvantage, and hits again when they feel like it.  So if you need 4-1 vehicles to win, but have to cover 3 sites you now need 12-1 in vehicles to win.   

To me that is why mechs became the king of the battlefield in the first place.  Easier to move/repair/concentrate, and tactically control.

Just my 2 cents.

[Daryk]

Well, the thing to remember is that at 15 tons, this tank only has one crew, just like a 'mech.  Both require a full tech team of 7 (1 Tech and 6 AsTechs) to maintain.  This thing will beat a Locust almost any day of the week...

[Rockjock]

I totally agree the Stingray is great for it's weight and price.  A lance of mid range light mechs can cost in the same range as a company of Stringrays, but has less of a logistics tail, and can concentrate firepower/resources at one spot easier then a larger number of tanks.  Mechs work better for force projection if nothing else. 

I totally agree that tankettes like this should be common for militia/secondline/defending forces, especially the SFE version.

[Daryk]

One for one, it's also cheaper than a Locust... you can have three of these for the price of two Locusts...

[Cavgunner]

I don't know.  It's nearly 1 million CB and a whole lot of high-tier wizzbang tech all for the damage output of a medium laser.

As a tabletop unit it's fine.  In fact, packing that much capability into a 15-ton frame is quite a novelty.  However, from a roleplay standpoint I don't think it would be suitable.

[Retry]

I don't know.  It's nearly 1 million CB and a whole lot of high-tier wizzbang tech all for the damage output of a medium laser.

The XLE version, perhaps.

The SFE version is only 366k C-Bills.  Compared to the Scorpion tank at around 327k C-Bills, the Stingray is just as well armored, faster, more accurate with its weapons due to targeting computer (especially with its anti-infantry SPL), 10 tons lighter, and doesn't require fuel nor ammunition.  1-on-1 a Stingray has an edge, and in the long term a Stingray may pay for itself even if it doesn't see combat.

[Sabelkatten]

I think of the difference as the difference between a longbow and a M-16. Both are about as expensive, and the M-16 is far more effective. But if you're stuck in the middle of the Amazonas a longbow is a far more realistic weapon to produce and maintain.

[Rockjock]

It is a great defensive tank for its size/weight/cost in either version.   The only reason to build a Scorpion vs a SFE Stingray is you can't handle building/maintaining the engine or the L-PPC on the Stingray.  The SFE Stringray at least ties in capabilities, is close in cost, and much better in logistics compared to the Scorpion.

The reason tanks like this don't replace mechs across the board is I can spend 6.5m c-bills and build a 35 tonner going 8/12/7 with a ERPPC and TC, XL, Endo, and 6.5 tons of FF that is more maneuverable, with a bigger punch at a better range.  The 26 Stingrays defending vs 4 (more or less even c-bills spent) of my quick mech builds attacking are most likely to win in a single, stand up fight.  The thing is the mech lance can go in water, jump over canyons/forests etc, basically they can go a lot of places the tanks can't go, so they don't need to get into a stand up fight outnumbered like that. The mechs are going to pick a fight, take out the tanks they can, leave and do it again tomorrow.  This leaves out things like the difference in logistics footprint, dropship deploy ability, the need to cover multiple potential raid spots, and so on that are purely  in game concerns.

If my choice is 6 Stingrays or 4 Locusts I'm taking the tanks for anything defensive, and most larger assaults. If it is 6 Stingrays or 4 Locusts for a planetary raid the Locust become more appealing.   If the choice is 50m worth of Stingrays or 50m worth of whatever I want the little tanks may still go high in a defensive scheme, but wouldn't have a place in many other battles.

I hope this did a better job of getting what I was trying to say across. I really like the Stingray, and would definitely expect to see it as a very common in universe vehicle in an era where L-PPCs andSFE/XLs are militia grade equipment. 

[Daryk]

I think of the difference as the difference between a longbow and a M-16. Both are about as expensive, and the M-16 is far more effective. But if you're stuck in the middle of the Amazonas a longbow is a far more realistic weapon to produce and maintain.

With that limited of a logistics train, the fusion engine wins every time, especially with energy weapons vice ammo consuming ones...

[Sabelkatten]

With that limited of a logistics train, the fusion engine wins every time, especially with energy weapons vice ammo consuming ones...

Now you're intentionally misunderstanding. CBT's vehicles may be magically robust, but even canonically pieces break at times. If there is no way to get fusion reactor part #356488 on-planet your fancy vehicle is just an expensive doorstop until you ship in a new one. If you also have to ship in a tech to replace it, it gets even worse.

[Daryk]

And when you run out of gas for the ICE, from where do you get it in the Amazonas?

[Sabelkatten]

And when you run out of gas for the ICE, from where do you get it in the Amazonas?

Knock it off. You know that canonically most IS worlds lack the tech base for fusion plants. If your engine fail fuel is irrelevant. Same if you can't get the engine in the first place.

And of course it's possible to make new arrows for a longbow in Amazonas; wood, feathers, glue and stone/obsidian is all available.

[Retry]

I think of the difference as the difference between a longbow and a M-16. Both are about as expensive, and the M-16 is far more effective. But if you're stuck in the middle of the Amazonas a longbow is a far more realistic weapon to produce and maintain.

Not that great of an example IMO.  Only if there were literally no logistical base (I.E. no civilization at all) would a longbow be a more realistic weapon.  A firearm at its simplest is basically a steel rod containing an explosive powder and a projectile, not only far more effective and also simple to maintain, but easier to use and train others to use as well.

Fusion engines require a stronger tech base than an ICE, but the difference isn't massive: ICEs are tech rating C and SFEs are tech rating D.  Not all of the components of a fusion vehicle would need state-of-the-art components to repair or replace, though.  Realistically, basically any component not related to the fusion reaction should be relatively straightfoward to replace.  A screw is a screw.  Heat exchangers/Radiators are not foreign concepts to anyone who knows about ICEs, or heat engines in general.

(For reference: BT's standard armor is also tech level D.  If you can't make your own spare fusion parts, chances are you can't repair your own armor either.)

[Sabelkatten]

OK, I get that. The problem is that the rules don't match the setting. I go by the setting. If I were to go by the rules I'd just laugh at your puny tanks and orbitally bombard them to scrap!

[Retry]

OK, I get that. The problem is that the rules don't match the setting. I go by the setting.

I think that issue could be fixed just by changing a few tech ratings for equipment.

If I were to go by the rules I'd just laugh at your puny tanks and orbitally bombard them to scrap!

Sure.  That holds for any other tank or 'Mech.  Of course, you might end up spending more on Gauss shells than the tanks are actually worth.

Generally, I tend to pretend the Warship rule don't exist unless I need them for fluff purposes.  I just don't care for them at all or how they're handled, but that's getting off topic.

[I am Belch II]

A 8/12 move PPC is a great thing.

[Sabelkatten]

I think that issue could be fixed just by changing a few tech ratings for equipment.Sure.  That holds for any other tank or 'Mech.  Of course, you might end up spending more on Gauss shells than the tanks are actually worth.

Generally, I tend to pretend the Warship rule don't exist unless I need them for fluff purposes.  I just don't care for them at all or how they're handled, but that's getting off topic.

That's exactly my point. If you argue that people should be using unit type X because of rule Y you also have to face that rule Z might make X irrelevant as well.

Some of the "tech level" rules doesn't make sense in the established setting, and the warship rules have the same problem. As do the vehicle construction rules when making light fusion-powered vehicles...

Anyway a tank like this makes sense on a rich world with a solid tech base. That's not really the market for Scorpion tanks so comparing them to each other isn't really relevant - if you're looking at Scorpion tanks chances are S-series hovertanks are going to stretch your tech support... ::)

The interesting question is how well this tank does against other light fusion vehicles - e.g. why take this instead of a hovertank, or a 25-ton tank with a full-sized PPC?

[Daryk]

Knock it off. You know that canonically most IS worlds lack the tech base for fusion plants. If your engine fail fuel is irrelevant. Same if you can't get the engine in the first place.

And of course it's possible to make new arrows for a longbow in Amazonas; wood, feathers, glue and stone/obsidian is all available.

No need to get personal.  Your example was a little extreme, but I ran with it as you wrote it.  If the middle of the jungle wasn't your point (and it doesn't appear it was), then why bring it up?  TL D is TL D.  If you have the tech to repair modern armor, you have it to repair fusion engines too.  And as far as "most IS worlds lacking the tech base for fusion plants", I'll counter-propose that "most IS worlds" aren't described in canon at all beyond coordinates on a map.  There are THOUSANDS of them.

[Sabelkatten]

No need to get personal.  Your example was a little extreme, but I ran with it as you wrote it.  If the middle of the jungle wasn't your point (and it doesn't appear it was), then why bring it up? 

Of course it was. It's called an analogy. You need a relatively high tech base to make/maintain a M-16. In the middle of the wilderness you don't have that (and no, "I'll just call UPS" is not a relevant counter!). No matter the cost you have to go with the most advanced gear you can make and maintain. Longbow rather than M-16 in wilderness, ICE rather than fusion on most (pre-3050) or many (post-3050) IS worlds.

TL D is TL D.  If you have the tech to repair modern armor, you have it to repair fusion engines too. And as far as "most IS worlds lacking the tech base for fusion plants", I'll counter-propose that "most IS worlds" aren't described in canon at all beyond coordinates on a map.  There are THOUSANDS of them.

The INNER SPHERE is described as generally pretty backwards. But as I wrote above the current rules directly contradicts the setting. If you play by the rules then yes, we should all be using fusion tanks.

Except of course we wouldn't. We'd be using our space fleets, and the nation that lost its fleet would soon be forced to sue for peace.

[Daryk]

I don't think your analogy really fits here, because the technology train necessary to support an ICE (to include the fuel infrastructure) is nearly as complex (if not more expensive) than that necessary to support a fusion engine.  As Retry pointed out, ICE are TL C, and also require an extensive infrastructure to make (or worse, extract and refine), store and distribute fuel.  I find that LESS likely on a "backwards" world that has access to interstellar trade (i.e., is on the map).  Every single DropShip is fusion powered, as is every single JumpShip.  Fusion power is NOT rare, not even in the Inner Sphere of 3025 (despite ComStar's best efforts).

[Sabelkatten]

Except, by canon, fusion power IS rare (up to the 3050s). Why do you think fusion engines were scavenged from tanks to repair mechs? Because it was easier than ordering a new part?

Now that might not make sense according to the rules, but that is - as noted - a problem with the rules. If you want to argue that the universe should be a certain way given the rules you have to face all the other ways it doesn't make sense (i.e. "I kills it with my battleships").

[DOC_Agren]

That the issue with the setting that up until 3050+ that fusion engines were rare, and many old fusion tanks were stripped for the power plant.
plus it it was fluffed that an idiot could mantain ICE units but Fusion took advanced schooling that wasn't available.

That why Scorpion Tanks exist, if I can support it I would love to have these Stingrays but if not I would be like the nations who spent money on "Modern Military Equipment" who can't do my own maintance on them.  Instead they sit and "rust"

[Daryk]

Exhibit A: The Savannah Master.

[DOC_Agren]

Exhibit A: The Savannah Master.

Savannah Master is notable for using a fusion engine, unlike most conventional vehicles of its era.