Outworlds Alliance MBT

[kaliban]

Heavy Tank based on the ubiquitous LRM/SRM carrier chassis.

Chieftain Heavy Tank

    During the beginning of the 31st century, the Outworlds Alliance was under constant attacks from pirates and raiders and its primary line of defense was the so called Planetary Militia, equipped with a miscellaneous of combat vehicles and infantry which suffered constant losses. Besides a small production of Vedettes and Hunters which proved expensive and inadequate for a defensive role, the OA depended on imports to keep these units in good combat strength.

    With the support from the United Outworlders Corporation (UOC) in Mitchella, the Outworlds Alliance initiated the development of a heavy combat vehicle meant to be the backbone of the Planetary Militia and also be used by the Mechanized Corps. The original requirement asked for a price tag of 1M c-bills (which was later exceed), heavy armor and a required top speed of only 54kph as it was meant to a defensive role. The armament should include one heavy autocannon (class 10 or 20), one secondary energy weapon not dependent of ammo and one LRM launcher for long range attacks.

    The result was a heavy tracked combat vehicle of 60 tons named Chieftain. Instead of creating an entirely new tank, UOC developed it from the ubiquitous LRM/SRM carrier chassis by keeping the original engine (an 180 ICE) and transmission, adding more armor and a full transverse turret.

     The main armament is an Autocannon class 10 which deliveries less damage than a AC/20 but has a much longer range - something very important in a such slow vehicle. One Medium Laser acts as secondary weapon able to fire indefinitely. The third weapon is a LRM-5 launcher which gives a small but useful firepower at long distances. Finally, a front mounted Machine Gun with 100 rounds is provided as an anti-infantry weapon.

    The Chieftain was very appreciated by its crews as a reliable and well armored tank. With thirteen tons of standard armor, it was able to sustain much more damage than most of other heavy tanks of its time. Top speed and firepower was not great, but by far enough to deal with a wide range of threats.

Code: [Select]

ype/Model: Chieftain
Mass: 60 tons

Equipment
Crits
Mass
Int.Struct.: 30 pts Standard
0
6
Engine: 180 I.C.E.
0
14
Power Amplifiers:
   0
     0
Cruise MP: 3
Flank MP: 5
Jumping MP: 0
Heat Sinks: 3 Single
0
3
Cockpit & Controls:
  0
3
Crew: 4 members
  0
0
Turret Equipment
  0
              1.5
Armor Factor: 208 pts Standard
0
13

Critical Internal Armor Points
Front 6 56
Left/Right 6/6 40/40
Rear 6 32
Turret 6 40
 


  Weapons & Equipment Loc Heat Ammo Crits Mass
1 Machine Gun Front 0 100 2 1
1 Autocannon/10 Turret 3 20 2 14
1 Medium Laser Turret 3 1 1
1 LRM 5 Turret 2 24 2 3
 
  TOTALS: 8 7 19


Calculated Factors:
Total Cost: 1`117`600 C-Bills
Battle Value 1: 471
Battle Value 2: 896
Cost/BV: 1247 C-Bill/BV

https://owa3025.blogspot.com/2021/05/chieftain-heavy-tank.html

[Daryk]

The four and a half tons spent on the Medium Laser would be better spent on SRMs...  ^-^

[kaliban]

The four and a half tons spent on the Medium Laser would be better spent on SRMs...  ^-^

in terms of min-max, yes, no doubt. In this sense, probably 2 tons of AC/10 ammo is also excessive and the unit will hardly be fighting for more than 10 turns of gameplay.

However, it was a requirement to have at least one weapon that does not depend on ammunition. The armor is also a bit excessive (10tons should be fine) but the vehicle is expected to be in forced withdraw (immobilized or have turret stuck) before destroyed, saving the crew.

[Cannonshop]

in terms of min-max, yes, no doubt. In this sense, probably 2 tons of AC/10 ammo is also excessive and the unit will hardly be fighting for more than 10 turns of gameplay.

However, it was a requirement to have at least one weapon that does not depend on ammunition. The armor is also a bit excessive (10tons should be fine) but the vehicle is expected to be in forced withdraw (immobilized or have turret stuck) before destroyed, saving the crew.

with a movement of 3/5 you're going to be mostly immobilized anyway, and not always by enemy fire, but simply because of how damage distributes with ground vehicle combat vs. what works tactically.

It's too bad you can't install the REAL force mulplier that works with OMC's focus (that would be a TAG unit instead of the laser, for calling precision air-strikes).

Two tons of AC/10 ammo isn't excessive at all, it lets you carry a bin of standard, and a bin of Flak ammo. (IIRC the second is general-issue throughout the setting even in the 3rd succession war era).

Ideally, this tank will do what 3/5 tanks do best; find a good place to park, and let the damage accumulate on the tracks while acting as a bunker and/or turret emplacement.  (3/5 is literally too slow for mobility based tactics or playing offense against even very slow enemy ground forces due to how flanking screws up your gunnery and at those speeds, you pretty much have to flank to get anywhere before the enemy's overrun something critical and beaten you anyway.  Then again, I tend to organize 'objective' based play instead of 'fight until everyone is dead' style for actual tabletop...)

so your fitment is not at all bad, so long as you keep in mind this isn't going to be leading any counter-attacks.

[Daryk]

If it's too early for TAG, it's not too early for a Recon Camera to at least call in fire while still shooting your own guns...  8)

[Ramblefire]

The four and a half tons spent on the Medium Laser would be better spent on SRMs...  ^-^

That's just a Marsden with extra steps though.

[Cannonshop]

That's just a Marsden with extra steps though.

sometimes that spells out exactly why the other design exists.  Thing is, there's really no reason to be concerned about efficiency when you're just building what amounts to a semi-mobile bunker with a turret. (which is every tank 3/5 or slower), so either way ends up working fine, as long as you actually use it the way it's designed to be used.

WHich is to say, "Not playing offense."

3/5 on offense for a vehicle is a waste of manpower and resources.  at those speeds, the optimal use is "find a parking space, park there, and shoot at anything that comes into range, you can fix the treads afterward."

The MINIMUM speed to play offense with a Tank, is 4/6, with more speed being better.

[kaliban]

sometimes that spells out exactly why the other design exists.  Thing is, there's really no reason to be concerned about efficiency when you're just building what amounts to a semi-mobile bunker with a turret. (which is every tank 3/5 or slower), so either way ends up working fine, as long as you actually use it the way it's designed to be used.

WHich is to say, "Not playing offense."

3/5 on offense for a vehicle is a waste of manpower and resources.  at those speeds, the optimal use is "find a parking space, park there, and shoot at anything that comes into range, you can fix the treads afterward."

The MINIMUM speed to play offense with a Tank, is 4/6, with more speed being better.

The problem is that for a 4/6 speed, a Heavy Tank needs a huge ICE. You can compare this tank to the Po Heavy Tank, of same tonnage.

[Sabelkatten]

Also, the speed requirement is very dependent on what you're "offensing". If you're doing Kursk then yes, slow tanks has a big problem. Stalingrad? Not so much of a problem.

[Cannonshop]

Also, the speed requirement is very dependent on what you're "offensing". If you're doing Kursk then yes, slow tanks has a big problem. Stalingrad? Not so much of a problem.

Playing "Offense' means movement.  3/5 is too slow to use movement, it's only suited to stationary positioning, which is optimal for the role of fixed turret slinging fire, once it's in position.

ESPECIALLY in a Stalingrad situation where you need that extra MP to get around corners or get positioned.  If you have to flank, that degrades your gunnery so that you have a harder time hitting than your opponent has hitting you (all other factors being equal).

Therefore, if you're playing offense, you need to be using a 'mech, or a different kind of vehicle (one that CAN play offense, because it can at least balance-to-neutral between TN and TH modifiers).

Remember, the hit locations on vehicles post-TW emphasize static positioning as the right move.  (they're also why 3/5 vehicles now have a role, where under BMR(R) they were a colossal waste of resources, time, and BV that died quickly and easily without doing a whole lot despite massive guns and being carved out of a block of armor.)

If you treat your forces as something you value, slow tanks are for defensive positions and ambushes only.  for the attack, you want something that can at minimum balance fire against defense or climb a hill without flanking.