Author Topic: Repost: Vehicle of the Week: Rhino Fire Support Tank  (Read 6271 times)

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16611
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Repost: Vehicle of the Week: Rhino Fire Support Tank
« on: 23 July 2011, 07:34:29 »
Vehicle of the Week Update: Rhino

(The original article is no longer available.)

This week I'm turning my attention to the Rhino.  First built in 2669, the Rhino was operated by the Star League Defense Force as a fire support unit.  Similar to TRO3026's SturmFeur (very similar in a lot of ways), the Rhino was and still is primarily a defensive asset, particularly in the hands of Periphery nations or other forces lacking extensive 'Mech support, but they're found in every nation's hands and I wouldn't be surprised to see a few turn up among the Clans, either.  With a low speed and ammo endurance, Rhinos are extremely unpopular for situations where they can't get resupply or fast-moving campaigns.  Given TRO3050U's comments about crew comfort or, rather, the lack of it (a point of similarity to the SturmFeur above and beyond the similar roles and game stats), that's probably a good thing for morale.  The notable unit from TRO3050U is interesting and shows the Rhino's power in a defensive situation.  A maniple of the Second Legio made up of five Rhinos, operating in a defensive position with reloads handled by frantic technicians, was able to withstand an extended attack by Lothian rebels before relieved.

The basic Rhino has an interesting contradiction about its endurance.  At eighty tons with a tracked chassis, the Rhino rumbles across terrain at 54 kph thanks to a 240-rated Pitban standard fusion engine, a very normal thing to find in Star League vehicles.  The engine itself is probably better known for its use in the legendary AWS-8Q Awesome or RFL-3N Rifleman, which raises the question of how the Rhinos avoided scavenging to supply those 'Mechs, but that's a question for someone else to answer.  The armor is brick-like.  It's not quite as ridiculous as the SturmFeur but it's still impressive at 17 tons (a ton over the 20% mark) layered on 64/54/40/60.  The Mk. IV and Mk. VI Alacorns (the AC/20 and Gauss models) aren't this tough and a Rhino is not unlikely to live well past its ammo load's expenditure.  The only real chink in the Rhino's shell is the lack of CASE, the crews' second favorite thing to complain about and usually first on commanders' lists unless they're using one as a command tank and thus have to suffer the cramped conditions themselves.  Short of a golden BB to the ammo bin, you're not killing a Rhino without a rather unreasonable amount of fire.  The firepower is solid while it lasts.  Two LRM 20s in the same five-tube configuration that would later be seen on the Atlas and two medium lasers are found in the turret while an LRM 10 is parked on the front bumper.  With only 3 tons of ammo equating to 9 rounds of fire for the heavy launchers, I really wonder if the secondary launcher was a good idea instead of, say, CASE and some more ammo to take advantage of the tank's basic durability.  (As a note, the TRO3050U art is significantly better by actually matching the weapons the tank carries.)  Overall, though, the Rhino is a perfectly acceptable unit and can actually defend itself a bit if someone decides to try pestering a lance of them as they haul themselves back for more ammo.

There's a whole cottage industry making minor variants of the Rhino thanks to how widespread they are.  Perhaps the most common ones replace the forward LRM rack with an SRM 6 fed by a single ton and a brace of either two vehicle flamers (one ton, 10 rounds per) or three machine guns (0.5 tons, 33 rounds per gun with an odd man out) for defense against infantry.  A model using small lasers is known but disliked due to heat issues, although that's not really a problem under the rules.  Personally, I'd opt for one of the other models under modern rules - multiple MGs or flamers will really take the starch out of infantry if they consider getting frisky.  Another known from the First Taurian Armored Lancers has two medium lasers and an SRM 2 with a single ton of ammo, again considered risky due to heat loads.  All of these variants and the primary model could be found anywhere in the Succession Wars and are all introductory rules, so they make a nice expansion for games where that's a concern.

A major redesign, needing either new construction or extensive refits in factory-level facilities, has also come to light in recent years, another one of the Star League Defense Force's Royal models.  An extra-light fusion engine was used to free up 8.5 tons.  Artemis IV fire control suites were added to all three launchers and the lasers were upgraded to pulse models.  The turret received an anti-missile system to improve endurance under fire and ECM was also installed.  While the ECM is always welcome, the AMS is probably not the defensive improvement most crews would have chosen.  Not a bad upgrade overall, of course, and the Artemis IV will make the LRM fire a lot less pleasant considering that ECM wasn't as common in that era.  Today, this model is only found among the Clans.

The Rhino needs to be used with the firm understanding that this isn't so much a tank as a really well-armored LRM carrier.  Unlike the carrier, it can operate in the direct fire role fairly safely and, given the limited ammo endurance, that's not a bad idea to maximize your chances of hitting.  Assign a screening unit or two to the Rhinos to protect them.  There's a wide range of choices here.  This isn't the unit to carry alternate munitions in, at least not for the heavy launchers, but you might get a decent return on loading Thunders into the LRM 10 and using it to lay mines to slow someone down while the Rhinos pull back for reloads.  That fluff about using Rhinos to defend fixed targets and close to resupply is reasonable advice- take it!

Killing Rhinos isn't the easiest thing to do.  As long as the ammo is still there (12 rounds of fire for the LRM 10), crit-seeking has the chance to knock it out quickly and easily, but short of that bit of luck, you need to simply hammer them into scrap to actually kill them.  However, like any slower tank, it's not hard to immobilize, and with the main launchers in a turret, you can frequently mission-kill a Rhino much faster than you can actually kill one directly.  If a Rhino unit decides to fort up, artillery can flush them out of their hole safely.  Keep in mind that Rhinos are usually found as defensive tanks at fixed locations.  It'll be safer if you can convince the Rhinos to burn their ammo.  A Rhino without LRM ammo is an annoyance to be disposed of at leisure.

References: The Master Unit List covers the availability and artwork.  CamoSpecs has two miniatures available but exactly what the weapons load is supposed to be is a little dubious.

Slicer3025

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 75
Re: Repost: Vehicle of the Week: Rhino Fire Support Tank
« Reply #1 on: 23 July 2011, 13:31:30 »
Was never much of a fan of the bricklike fire support vees.  Things like this should never be anywhere close to the line of fire, thats what semi guided, indirect fire, and minefield laying are for  }:)

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16611
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Repost: Vehicle of the Week: Rhino Fire Support Tank
« Reply #2 on: 23 July 2011, 13:48:28 »
I believe that the view that you shouldn't be found near the line of fire is founded on the naive belief that the line of fire won't find you.  LRM carriers have their uses.  Reuse, all too frequently, isn't one of them.  All of that said, Rhinos are overkill where the armor is concerned.

ANS Kamas P81

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13288
Re: Repost: Vehicle of the Week: Rhino Fire Support Tank
« Reply #3 on: 23 July 2011, 13:52:53 »
Considering the proliferation of LRMs on everything including battlearmor, I would point out that if it's in range to be effective it's in range to get its face shot off and then some.  So armor is a good thing, and not much you can do about it.
Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen,
Tod und Verzweiflung flammet um mich her!
Fühlt nicht durch dich Jadefalke Todesschmerzen,
So bist du meine Tochter nimmermehr!

Slicer3025

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 75
Re: Repost: Vehicle of the Week: Rhino Fire Support Tank
« Reply #4 on: 23 July 2011, 13:58:36 »
Now now, i'm not advocating tissue thin armor like we find on the traditional missile boats, but i think 10% of total mass is usually sufficient for surviving the occasional leaker who breaks through the line.  Not to mention these bad boys should have some bodyguard support of their own.

I've had too many battles where the enemy was so focused at getting to my rear area fire support i just blew em apart as they charged at me en masse ala Picket's Charge.

Jellico

  • Spatium Magister
  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6129
  • BattleMechs are the lords of the battlefield
Re: Repost: Vehicle of the Week: Rhino Fire Support Tank
« Reply #5 on: 23 July 2011, 14:55:45 »
Considering the mass of another LRM, what other than armour could you mount? And this isn't a request for fanmade variants.

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16611
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Repost: Vehicle of the Week: Rhino Fire Support Tank
« Reply #6 on: 23 July 2011, 14:56:24 »
More ammo and CASE.

Maelwys

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4884
Re: Repost: Vehicle of the Week: Rhino Fire Support Tank
« Reply #7 on: 23 July 2011, 18:02:06 »
Its another design where the fluff is rather odd to me. First its one of those purely Introductory Tech designs that appeared in 2750. I would've loved to have seen some sort of advanced tech on it, even if it was just dropping a half ton of armor for CASE (or FF Armor and CASE, or something).

We also know that Kerensky rebuilt the factories on Terra, which ComStar mothballed...I can't believe the specs for the Royal Rhino were lost. They may not have been producing it necessarily in order to help rebuild the SLDF faster after the Amaris Crisis, but there's no reason for the schematics to be lost.

And finally, 300 years later, the WoB doesn't put an advanced model into production? Really? Its yet another design that they're producing on Terra (and have been for a while) that doesn't even get a modicum of an upgrade?

Dark_Falcon

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 499
  • Over, under, or through.
Re: Repost: Vehicle of the Week: Rhino Fire Support Tank
« Reply #8 on: 23 July 2011, 18:32:12 »
Its another design where the fluff is rather odd to me. First its one of those purely Introductory Tech designs that appeared in 2750. I would've loved to have seen some sort of advanced tech on it, even if it was just dropping a half ton of armor for CASE (or FF Armor and CASE, or something).

We also know that Kerensky rebuilt the factories on Terra, which ComStar mothballed...I can't believe the specs for the Royal Rhino were lost. They may not have been producing it necessarily in order to help rebuild the SLDF faster after the Amaris Crisis, but there's no reason for the schematics to be lost.

And finally, 300 years later, the WoB doesn't put an advanced model into production? Really? Its yet another design that they're producing on Terra (and have been for a while) that doesn't even get a modicum of an upgrade?

Maybe they felt, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it.".  They already had upgraded LRM Carriers for their front line units, and the Rhino could serve for for their defensive units, durable enough to take a position where it can take a good shot, but cheap enough to build in numbers.
To the utmost!

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16611
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Repost: Vehicle of the Week: Rhino Fire Support Tank
« Reply #9 on: 23 July 2011, 20:34:45 »
Maybe they felt, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it.".  They already had upgraded LRM Carriers for their front line units, and the Rhino could serve for for their defensive units, durable enough to take a position where it can take a good shot, but cheap enough to build in numbers.

CASE does not affect cost very much at all for the benefits of increased tank survival and especially increased crew survival.  And crews would love it, too.  Napoleon had a saying about morale as a force multiplier and he was right.

Maelwys

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4884
Re: Repost: Vehicle of the Week: Rhino Fire Support Tank
« Reply #10 on: 23 July 2011, 21:42:17 »
Maybe they felt, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it.".  They already had upgraded LRM Carriers for their front line units, and the Rhino could serve for for their defensive units, durable enough to take a position where it can take a good shot, but cheap enough to build in numbers.

But it is broke for the most part. Pre-Star League tech in 3067+? It may still be effective, but its not THAT effective. It could be more effective. Crews could survive. Weapons could get extended ranges.

The Alacorn is pretty effective, but it gets revamps. The Challenger seems to be constantly revamped, despite its effectiveness.

The Rhino lacks protection for its crew, and it could be argued that its short on ammo for its primary weapons. Why not revamp it?

Radec2000

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 43
  • We would have "words" with thee...
Re: Repost: Vehicle of the Week: Rhino Fire Support Tank
« Reply #11 on: 24 July 2011, 01:23:36 »
I figure the rhino is used in a fire support role for a cav strike meant to bring some heavy fire to assit in breaking up the enemies line for the cav to break thru to the objective and able to defend from forward elements of the enemy until cav either finishes objective or the enemy retreats ro deal with the cav units tearing up the the battle line or reinforcemeants come.

Einhander

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 59
Re: Repost: Vehicle of the Week: Rhino Fire Support Tank
« Reply #12 on: 01 August 2011, 15:41:56 »
Always had good luck with this unit. Used to lay them out with some Shrecks and Alacrons (adding Mech. Inf., Demons, Furys, and Burkes to taste).

With that much armor, the chances that all the ammo will be fired is remarkably high. Combined with some nastier threats (Alacrons, Demons) and pacing of the ammunition (only 1 '20 launcher if the mods are bad) they can remain a serious threat later than they should be. Really, Rhinos and Alacorns get along so well together they might as well be peanut butter and jelly.

Unlike other LRM carriers, these units should be kept with your 3/5 and 4/6 tank forces as they grind around. Like all of the Star League MBT/Support tanks, use en mass and move only one element a turn, making sure that at least a portion of the force is stationary and covering the rest. Getting a Rhino into the thick of battle actually works quite well, as the threat of a close/mid range brace of LRMs gets people a little skitish.


JBGarrison72

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • "Formidable in Defense!"
Re: Repost: Vehicle of the Week: Rhino Fire Support Tank
« Reply #13 on: 07 June 2015, 03:53:54 »
Sorry to necro this thread, but...

Has anyone seen a Rhino tank model other than the one produced in 1995 by RAL PARTHA which has only 4 panels of 5 LRM holes in the front chassis (thus showing only one LRM 20 rather than two), and 3 barreled weapons along with 6 SRM holes in the turret?

This model matches no variants mentioned in the SARNA.NET wiki... I have 10 of these tanks, and now I'm despairing that they are completely wrong. :/
« Last Edit: 07 June 2015, 04:34:51 by JBGarrison72 »
- Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
Spokane, Washington State

Empyrus

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9122
Re: Repost: Vehicle of the Week: Rhino Fire Support Tank
« Reply #14 on: 07 June 2015, 04:09:54 »
Sorry to necro this thread, but...

Has anyone seen a Rhino tank model other than the one produced in 1996 by RAL PARTHA which has only 4 panels of 5 LRM holes in the front chassis (thus showing only one LRM 20 rather than two), and 3 barreled weapons along with 6 SRM holes in the turret?

This model matches no variants mentioned in the SARNA.NET wiki... I have 10 of these tanks, and now I'm despairing that they are completely wrong. :/
By description, it more or less matches the original TRO 2750 art, which is used by Sarna as the main image for the vehicle.

No, there is no such variant. Rather, the tube arrangement is just odd. Probably. Don't think about it too much.

Rules>art.

EDIT BTW, the newer, TRO3050 art depicts the stats more accurately. Didn't check but if there's a Rhino miniature available from IWM, i reckon it is based on TRO3050 art.

I recommend making your own version if that bothers you. Based on the TRO2750 art, a SRM-4 (or SRM-6 if the miniature depicts it so), trio of medium lasers and a LRM-20 should do it.
EDIT Except that doesn't work, after checking it out in SSW...
« Last Edit: 07 June 2015, 04:18:25 by Empyrus »

JBGarrison72

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • "Formidable in Defense!"
Re: Repost: Vehicle of the Week: Rhino Fire Support Tank
« Reply #15 on: 07 June 2015, 04:33:38 »
By description, it more or less matches the original TRO 2750 art, which is used by Sarna as the main image for the vehicle.

No, there is no such variant. Rather, the tube arrangement is just odd. Probably. Don't think about it too much.

Rules>art.

EDIT BTW, the newer, TRO3050 art depicts the stats more accurately. Didn't check but if there's a Rhino miniature available from IWM, i reckon it is based on TRO3050 art.

I recommend making your own version if that bothers you. Based on the TRO2750 art, a SRM-4 (or SRM-6 if the miniature depicts it so), trio of medium lasers and a LRM-20 should do it.
EDIT Except that doesn't work, after checking it out in SSW...

Quite a pickle! Thank you for helping me understand the issue, namely that the sculpt is indeed simply wrong and like you say, requires some kind of custom design treatment or just resignation to proxying for an actual existing variant.
- Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
Spokane, Washington State

Empyrus

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9122
Re: Repost: Vehicle of the Week: Rhino Fire Support Tank
« Reply #16 on: 07 June 2015, 08:02:29 »
This is rather common with Battletech things actually.
For example, the Orion mech has SRM-4 in the left torso according to record sheet, but miniatures and art puts it to left arm. Very easy to fix, if customization is allowed in your table.

The Rhino is more problematic, as you will see if you try to tweak it. Moving the LRMs to front to match the art means it will lose some of its usefulness (turreted weapons are better arguably), and matching the tubes exactly means you will be underweight soon...
Speaking of that, l'll set up a "workshop thread" for this on the custom vehicle forum...

I suspect the stats and the art weren't done collaboratively really for many old designs.

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40982
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Repost: Vehicle of the Week: Rhino Fire Support Tank
« Reply #17 on: 07 June 2015, 09:13:07 »
Quite a pickle! Thank you for helping me understand the issue, namely that the sculpt is indeed simply wrong and like you say, requires some kind of custom design treatment or just resignation to proxying for an actual existing variant.

Some units(such as the Atlas) are fluffed as having rapid-fire missile racks, so they can pump more missiles out of fewer tubes in a given period of time. You can always assume that as a rationale for odd missile tube counts.

And some missile launchers have some weird layouts, such as the Firebee. You can rationalize anything into being a missile launcher.
My wife writes books

Sixteen tons means sixteen suits. CT must be repaired.

"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul