Now, obviously Battletech is far from the hardest sci-fi out there, and there's nothing wrong with that. Mechs with the density of styrofoam and the ability to run rampant over the battlefield have never been a particularly plausible idea from a scientific standpoint, they're just cool. But what about some of the less fantastical technologies? BT is a product of its 80s origin, and some of the ideas it uses clearly draw from the state-of-the-art from the time. How well have those ideas held up?
Hovercraft in Battletech have always been a staple of combat vehicle fans. Solid terrain performance, low cost, reasonable payload, and great speed. Swarms of Savannah Masters, Drillsons, J. Edgars, you've got a lot of competitive options. Excelling in the scout and fast attack roles, a hovercraft force is a significant threat even to mechs in practiced hands, a terror in skilled ones. Yet unlike most science fiction, Battletech's hovercraft are surprisingly grounded, no pun intended. No fantastical anti-grav or magic lift systems, just good ol' fashioned blown skirts. A vision of the future, from the 80s. Yet why do we not see hovertanks and skirt-borne scouts in our world? Indeed, why has the hovercraft nearly disappeared from the public consciousness?
Hovercraft kinda suck. A bit of an exaggeration, but pretty reflective of the hovercraft's many weaknesses that have held them back from all but a few uses (mainly as landing craft, where the ability to move on water and land at high speed is invaluable). I'll elaborate, because I like to talk, and I hope the reading will be enjoyable.
Hovercraft are big. Due to using air pressure supplied by fans to suspend the craft, there are practical limits to how heavy a hovercraft can be for a given ground contact area, beyond normal limits like ground pressure. The LAVC-30, a US military transport hovercraft, weighed 30 tons and could transport about 30 tons of equipment. It was 24 meters long and 12 meters wide. In comparison, a Leopard 2 tank, somewhat heavier at around 62 tons, is only about 10 meters long (including gun overhang) and 3.75 meters wide. By comparison the hovercraft is huge, and this applies to all scales. The Savannah Master hardly seems like a good scout when you realize that it would be 2-3 times the size of a similar-weight tracked vehicle.
Hovercraft are unwieldy. Hovering above the ground means not having any contact with the ground other than occasional contact with the skirt. This means you depend on thrusters (usually ducted fans) and aerodynamic control surfaces/thrust-vectoring to move and maneuver. This mean that while hovercraft can reach high speeds, their acceleration is pretty poor when compared to most ground vehicles. That and the sideslip (represented in the rules, but a real concern) makes controlling them more like piloting an aircraft, except you're way too close to the ground for comfort. Navy LCACs (182 tons) require hundreds of meters to stop and thousands to turn at high speed.
Finally, hovercraft are unsubtle and uncomfortable. The usage of large turbine engines, giant fans, and lots of moving air means lots of noise and dust(it also consumes huge amounts of gas). Hovercraft are some of the least stealthy vehicles in existence. While you'll get to places quickly, your arrival will be preceded by a hell of a racket and a miniature dust storm. This is only exacerbated by being so large. Despite floating around on a cushion of air, the ride on even large hovercraft has been compared to jetliners in high turbulence.
So to the poor Savannah Master, despite it's great in-game statistics, if translated to reality would most likely be a big noisy target. Difficult, exhausting, even dangerous to control, you have a scout that can be seen long before it can see, and will have severe difficulty maneuvering the way it can on the tabletop. But of course, on the tabletop, it remains a terror, worthy of its reputation.
Hope this has been a fun read! Any defense for our floaty friends? Any more damning flaws?
