What's old is neu: Relighting the Fringe with old guns and new wars

[ANS Kamas P81]

400km/h for helicopters is a general hard limit because of two issues, the advancing blade risking going supersonic and all that entails, and the retreating blade stalling on that side of the aircraft and losing lift.  As chanman says, compound helicopters or coaxial rotors can mitigate retreating blade stall, but you've still got the supersonic blade problem at higher speeds.

When I made the V-22 and its knockoffs I had a decent amount of cargo tonnage that could be carried in the aircraft.  Turning it all into a Lift Hoist would be possible but you'd end up with a ludicrous amount of weight that could be carried if you completely used the cargo tonnage for lift hoists.  Maybe put a limit of 10-15-20% of the aircraft's total weight in a lift hoist?

Reposting this info from a bunch of pages ago:

According to https://media.defense.gov/2017/Mar/29/2001723706/-1/-1/0/CIM_13482_2B.PDF this PDF in Chapter 2, the UH-1H carries 4,000 pounds and the UH-1N has a sling load capacity of 5,000 pounds.  The SH-2F has a limit of 4,000 pounds, SH-3G 6,000 pounds, HH-3F 8,000 pounds, and the CH-46 A/D/E has a limit of 10,000 pounds.  The CH-47 meanwhile jumps to 26,000 pounds, the H-53 A/D maxes out at 20,000 pounds, and the HH-53E Super Stallion at 32,000 pounds.  The Black Hawks have a wide range - the UH-60A and HH-60G have an 8,000 pound rating, the UH-60L at 9,000 pounds, the SH-60B at only 4,000 pounds, and the HH-60H and HH-60J is 6,000 pounds.  Last in the list is the H-65A Dolphin which carries a max of 2,000 pounds.

MTOW for the UH-1H is 9,500 pounds, UH-1N 10,500 pounds, SH-2F 12,800 pounds, SH-3G 21,500 pounds, HH-3F 22,050 pounds, CH-46E 24,300 pounds, CH-47 50,000 pounds, CH-53D 50,000 pounds, HH-53E 73,500 pounds, UH-60A 22,000 pounds, UH-60L 20,250 pounds, SH-60B 21,700 pounds, HH-60H 22,000 pounds, and H-65A 9,480 pounds.

So looking at the numbers, it's between 1/4 and 1/2 of the helicopter's MTOW that can be slingloaded, which is a pretty wide range.  That sling load takes up a decent chunk of the maximum weight of the aircraft, which is what one would assume they'd build the helicopter in Tankreator with, and any leftover weight after structure and engine and equipment would either be the aircraft's internal cargo or external load to carry, depending how you fluffed it.  I think we can treat sling loads as general cargo, just fluffed as being carried externally instead of inside the aircraft.

[Failure16]

I know all about the max speed for conventional rotary-winged aircraft--helicopters. The "Max Speed Limit" for them in Tankreator was never an issue until you brought up the MV-22 Osprey, which is a tiltrotor and rather a different animal insofar as maximum speed goes. But it's not different enough to make a completely different set of design fundamentals for, and Dust & Fire as a ruleset is not really configured for different rotor-arrangements. It is too abstracted, doesn't have side-slipping rules, etc. The only question is: is the max speed for tiltrotors (as a departure from conventional rotary craft) that important, enough to justify a change in Tankreator past an amendment to the pop-up note? I think not, since the note does not prohibit you from making your creation go faster, it just throws up a red flag on the play.

Which is not to say that there will not be a rules-addendum to turn-radii at-speed, which is being done because it will also play into how gravtanks are operated, so it helps two different motive-systems. I'll readdress that animal soonish. (As an aside, I do know that a UH-60 sling-loading a standardized 6'x6'x8' 1800-kilo CONEX is limited to 185-220 kph (off a 290ish kph max airspeed) Thus, it is soemthing that has to be addressed.)

[ANS Kamas P81]

Tiltrotors probably should be built as aircraft instead of VTOLs, despite their VTOL abilities.  The speed and wing design are much more in line with an airplane that has a special landing system instead of a helicopter's unique characteristics.  That way we can keep the 40MA cap on VTOLs specifically, and create a subset of fixed-wing aircraft that can VSTOL or VTOL - after all, it's not just the Osprey that can do that.  Harrier and Yak-141 have VTOL capability as well, among others.  That does mean no tiltrotors until aircraft are modelable, but I can be patient.

External cargo eating into performance...that's going to be tricky enough to model.  The logical option is to create stats for a VTOL at a certain "full" weight level, and then keep the same engine tonnage while you work out a maximum weight above that and see where your MA falls.  That would require a lot of fine fiddling to achieve, and really might not be worth the effort.  I've been doing that for vehicle families sharing the same engine for APCs and it's a lot of work to zero everything out. 

Off the top of my head, how about a general rule that an helicopter carrying no internal cargo can carry 33% of its maximum weight as a sling load, but loses 30% of its MA to drag and weight doing so?  That'd allow your aviators the option of either loading internally up to the cargo limit of the aircraft, or carrying (usually) more externally with limitations to its movement?  Volume isn't part of Tankreator, so your internal cargo bays are pretty nebulous as to what they can carry outside of weight.  33% won't be accurate for all real-world aircraft, since the helicopter external loads I posted above are anywhere from 25% to 50% of the max TOW, but it would be a single calculation that could be fluffed as a "safety maximum" - and it'd be a simple addendum to the record sheet, rather than trying to work out detailed math for each airframe.

[Daryk]

Tagging a VTOL capability to fixed wing aircraft would certainly be easier than figuring out rules for helicopters to do it! :)

[Failure16]

Well, for now, the Speed Limit check will now be in the Mobility header, appearing only when a "VTOL ATK" or "VTOL Utility" is chosen as a chassis.

Interesting thought about making tiltrotors fold into Aircreator. I hadn't considered it, really.

[Daryk]

I at least HOPE it would be easier to implement as a toggle on that side of things... ;)

[chanman]

I re-exported all of the fluffed HMV files to text format here

[ANS Kamas P81]

It seems 1.664 is still giving the same error on Close Assault troops that the previous generations were.  I get a similar error when setting the FCS to a zero-weight level, it doesn't read the 0.0 as a number and puts the systems weight (and the total remaining weight) as #VALUE as well.  I'm wondering if there's a similar zero-reading error for CA infantry, if their short and medium range is 0?  Where's the range entry reading its data from, maybe I can fix that?

I also took another swing at a Gensoukyouan TL5 tank; I was never satisfied with the 65 ton weight of the Type 20.  I took a look at modern JGSDF armor, the Type 10, and it only weighs 48 tons to be able to operate on a large amount of Japanese bridges and roads.  That seemed like a reasonable number to try for, while still keeping the MDC/15 of the AW-15 - and it'd be a great reason why the Gensoukyouans didn't simply buy AW-15s; even that tank is too heavy or physically large for the infrastructure on the planet.  Not that the Type 20 is all that much smaller in volume, but it is almost 30 tons lighter and that's a lot when it comes to road and bridge limits.

The downsides to the tank are a relatively limited amount of ammunition onboard, only a couple thousand rounds for all of its machine guns combined and 31 main gun rounds.  There's also a hard limit on its armor protection; it can stop 105mm guns and light ATGMs to the hull front and 120mm or MDC/12s to the turret, but its side protection is only rated against 30mm guns at pointblank range, and the rear stopping 20mm fire.  Part of the reason for that weakness in the rear is the requirement for a operable hatch for its infantry, who deploy out of the rear of the vehicle.

I like this version better, despite its lighter armor, because it fits Gensoukyou's world building.  It's still got all the active protection systems and electronics of the heavier version, but it's a lot more appropriate to the backwater planet - the AW-15 and AW-18 are products of a heavily industrialized society, with the infrastructure to go with it.

On that note...so how does creating a tractor-trailer work for Tankreator anyway?  I want to come up with a tank transporter with a 50 ton weight limit for its towed trailer, but I'm not sure how to go about doing that.  Has anyone created a heavyweight trailer like that for the Fringe?

Ooh, lots of text to flip through.  Hooray fluff!

EDIT: Whoops, forgot the smoke grenades on the Type 20.  One addition there and a slight reduction in ammunition to make up for it fixed that.  Reuploaded!

[Failure16]

The fundamental infantry data is located in the Drop Down Sheet, Cells W-AL, 61-87 (Infantry_Teams_LookupNEW, if your version can look up datasets via the Name Box near the far left of the Formula Bar. I have run CA Inf through every permutation, from TL N/A to 10 and get zero issues, and the proper changes.

I wish I could be more help, but I cannot. And this is not the computer Tankreator was made on, so it is not some sort of legacy memory, either. Let me try saving it as the latest Excel version and I'll send it to you.

I much prefer the lighter tanks. I have to admit that a part of me realizes that the AW-18 is a lot like the T-77 in Novo service:  it fulfills a role, but it is not the only tool they have, or even the one that they use the most. Just like I do not have a problem if they are still running primarily wheeled APCs and not fully-tricked out IFVs. It must have taken a lot out of the Sapporan defense industry to go from Type 74s to next-gen Abrams in the span of a few years. They likely had to make cuts elsewhere.

Chanman (and then I, following his lead) made a whole host of comb at rigs and trailers for Milton. I even gamed a small campaign out on that world in his honor. It is not something I have recreated in Tankreator, so it'll be a journey we all have to embark upon together. As of this moment, you just make the tractor as a normal truck and the trailer as an engineless vehicle (there is a check-box for it). Not too different from BattleTech. I confess, like the helos, I do not have a system for how towing a trailer will affect the speed of a vehicle.

I do know that one AFV towing another slows the first down considerably. But this is rather a different scenario. On a road, it arguably should not change its speeds by much. The major change in how a tractor operates would be its acceleration and deceleration, both of which are not modeled in Dust & Fire. The first was supposed to be, a decade ago, because dash speed was going to be a thing tactically. But the game engine was getting unwieldly enough, and Tankreator was coming together in such a fashion that the addition of such an artifact was proving to be unbelievably vexing and complex.

Chanman, that is awesome. Cheers!

[Failure16]

Kamas, is the Infantry Record Sheet okay on the ranges? The display on the Infantry Worksheet actually comes and is collated from the Record Sheet itself. Those values, in turn, come from the Drop-Down Sheet as mentioned above.

[ANS Kamas P81]

I think the issue is with OpenOffice, for some reason it's not reading four of those formulas correctly.  Here's what I see when I look at the data range you provided; most of the numbers are determined by calculations such as AB64's entry which shows #VALUE on my sheet:

=(IF($'Infantry Worksheet'.F7="";"";CONCATENATE($'Infantry Worksheet'.F7/2)))/100

I notice that it's referring to F7 on the Infantry Worksheet, I have this data for that cell:

=VLOOKUP(B8;Infantry_TL_lookup3;3;FALSE())*VLOOKUP(B10;InfantryQuality_lookup3;3;FALSE())

There is an easy solution here - the numbers for the Rifle Team have no calculation behind them, they're just typed in as you see them in the data set.  The same goes for all range numbers entered in white on that screenshot.  If I just type in a number, then check the Infantry Worksheet, it displays ranges properly in both the worksheet and record sheet.  So hand-entering instead of relying on a formula fixes the problem.  The question is, then, what should those four #VALUE entries be?  They seem to be the only ones with zeroes in them that are calculated instead of hand-entered.  Based on that, I'm guessing 0/0/2 for the Close Assault infantry ranges, and 0/2/4 for Military Police and Sapper?  I can just edit the data set and resolve the calculation that way.

The Type 15 APC is very likely Sapporo's standard; Gensoukyou uses some but not a large number - only 90 of them in 2530, compared to 338 M113-clone Type 95 tracked APCs.  There's also the Type 18 IFV, of which there's 86 in the Gensoukyouan inventory - about 1/3 of the hardware's TL5, roughly, though small arms and infantry equipment is generally TL5 across the board.  Mass-producing body armor and rifles is simple enough compared to large numbers of heavy vehicles.  The AW-18 is Sapporo's strategic sledgehammer, it's what the SDR uses to scare unruly tankers to sleep on other worlds.  It's a beatstick that's saved for special occasions.

[Failure16]

Weellll...the Rifle Team numbers are not hard numbers. As you change the different cells in the worksheet, you will see those ranges change. They are derived from the Infantry Team Offensive TL and their Quality (the referenced Cell, F7* on the Creation WS is not actually blank for those looking at the provided-image, but the text is the same as the background to make it hidden. For TL5 Trained infantry it is 350). For what it is worth, very few things in Tankreator are actual "hard numbers". They are driven by the fundamental factors that impinge on them. In this example, an infantry element's engagement range is a result of their equipment and how well they use it (on average, across a force).

Just like armor in this system is not specifically an amount of protection-per-tonne. The mass of protection is a result of the size of the object being protected, how thick that protection is, the type of protection-material being used, and the materials science behind the producer.

For what it is worth, I tried writing all this out as part of the Dust & Fire ruleset. I very rapidly found my time was much better spent working on Tankreator!


*The formula to get to that number is indeed =VLOOKUP(B8,Infantry_TL_lookup3,3,FALSE)*VLOOKUP(B10,InfantryQuality_lookup3,3,FALSE) which is what is in F7, as you know.

[Failure16]

Last thing for the night:

I am auditioning for any additional Infantry support weapons. The only caveats being they have to be sufficiently different from the existing weapons. To put that into perspective, the MMG and HMG do not have to be M240s and M2 HBs; once you get to TL5+, they could just as easily be electromotive versions of those ol'-reliables. Their damage and ranges scale upwards as the associated TL does, so it's already built into the system.

I can see a laser- and particle-weapon being a thing, but that's all I got at the moment. But I lack creativity, you see.

And special rules. Those are still a WiP and are not represented on the Record Sheet just yet. But they will be in the new last row of the sheet which is basically a blank line right now. I'll take advisement on those, too!

[Failure16]

The AW-18 is Sapporo's strategic sledgehammer, it's what the SDR uses to scare unruly tankers to sleep on other worlds.  It's a beatstick that's saved for special occasions.

Love it.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Not the Rifle Team, I was wrong - it's the Heavy Rifle Team, the Flamer Team, Headquarters, Medic, Melee, Suicide Bomber, and Zombies that all have hard numbers instead of formulae on the AB-AD columns.  You can see the data line at the top of this screenshot, it just has 3 for a value instead of a proper formula.  When I go to the Infantry Creation worksheet, and select Heavy Rifle Teams, the ranges don't change based on whatever TL I choose for general or offensive TL.

What's really bizarre is that the Quick Infantry Creation System works as-advertised, and varies its ranges for teams such as flamethrowers and heavy rifles, unlike the Standard Infantry Creation System.  I'm willing to just ignore the SICS and roll with the QICS, which for unknown reasons OpenOffice reads right.  I don't know why OO is reading integers where there's clearly not supposed to be any, but I don't want to go digging for formulae when I can just work around it with the Quick ICS.

Which...works, until I put in a Squad Level of Large Team or Squad, then I get #VALUE in the Suppression Threshold in the record sheet for the QICS.  It displays properly for Team or Large Squad.  The Suppression Threshold shows in the worksheet, so I can see what it's supposed to be...but I can work around that by simply using 3- and 4-man Teams, and never using Large Teams for the Squad Level.  Four man fire teams for everyone but tank infantry, which gets two three-man teams per tank - two riflemen and a machine gun in each team.  That way they can split up and cover each side of the tank.

Have some infantry.

Laser and DEW guns would definitely be a thing, with excessively long ranges - wasn't there an antipersonnel version of the Powergun from Hammer's Slammers?  I vaguely recall that book, I remember the strip defense equipment and I swear there was a tribarrel powergun for dealing with infantry Way Over There.  Rechargable antitank lasers would be cool as well, something like these from the Akira anime:



You've honestly got a pretty good representation of capabilities as it is, from disposable one-shot weapons that could be rockets or could be battery-powered MDCs in a tube to rapid-firing coilguns acting as ersatz machine guns.  Long range flamethrowers could be plasma weapons, as well.  The range and damage changes based on TL already take this technological difference into account, so there really wouldn't be anything new outside of super-long-ranged guns like the aforementioned powerguns/High Energy Cannons and lasers.  DEWs pretty quickly fall into "if you can see it you can hit it" ranges, so it comes down to the optics that your infantry are using.  Things like the XM157 and the IVAS become major components of your sighting, especially if you add in AI image recognition and spotting...TL5 is going to be cool when we get there.

EDIT

Something I noticed when I tried out 1.664 (and 1.6631) was that it was back to reading weapon Quantity on the Vehicle Worksheet as a dropdown choice between AH and AL again, and limited the quantity of ammunition to a dropdown of 1-40 - the same was for the year of introduction.  I copied over blank cells to all of those, and they work now, but it's just one more weird issue that OpenOffice has for the spreadsheet.  I imagine I'm the only one having these issues; I'd spring for a copy of XL but I'm not paying 60 bucks a month for it.  I miss the days when you actually bought and not rented software...

[DOC_Agren]

So...  has this been statted yet?
http://www.d6holocron.com/wiki/index.php/Spaceball_Landspeeder
and what would be the effect of slapping a M2 in the back?  Would it have to "land" to fire effective?

[ANS Kamas P81]

You'd have what looks like a three or four ton grav tank with an APW/H on a rear pintle mount.  Too high tech for the Fringe, but grav tanks have been written up before.  Let's see...kinda reminds me of the Sahariana armored car the Italians made in WWII.



With the introduction of the 48 ton Type 20 MBT in 2520, the GGDF had a new heavier tank, but lacked a modern support element of an engineer vehicle built on the same engine and hull.  Gensoukyou's military industry went to work with a tank driver's training vehicle, a turretless hull with a built up front superstructure allowing tankers in training the ability to practice driving the vehicle with instructors in support.  The front mounted engine was kept, along with the rear infantry bay, the latter of which was repurposed to carry a supply of tools instead of weapons for its two three-man engineer teams.

In a fortunate coincidence, the turret ring diameter of the Type 20 matched that of the AW-02; a decision made by the design committee to smooth the transition between models for the factory making the tanks.  A spare AW-02 turret was quickly sourced, and its main and coaxial guns stripped away to make room for a 165mm demolition cannon firing either HESH or HE rounds designed to be used against obstacles and fortifications.  The pintle-mounted machine gun was retained as a defense against infantry and air power, though the AW-02 turret's older FCS was less capable than the Type 20's modern vetronics and its ammunition supply is small.  The distinctive searchlight on the AW-02's turret was also kept, making it possible for its carried engineers to work at night if the situation demanded it.

Other equipment fitted to the tank included a dozer blade on the front allowing it to either clear obstacles on a pathway to allow its fellow vehicles mobility through what would otherwise be a blocked off area.  Recovery of other tanks and vehicles was addressed with the use of an A-frame crane mounted to the turret, normally stowed at the rear but when extended forward reached several meters past the front of the hull and the short-barreled cannon.  This crane is rated to hoist up to fifteen tons, making it possible to lift any of the standard APCs in the GDF off the ground if necessary.  To handle heavier weights, a fifty ton winch was installed at the front of the tank; this is capable of attaching to mired Type 20s - or Type 23 CEVs, for that matter - and pulling them to firm ground.

I did try to make a trailer for my tank transporter idea, but the structural weight is way too high - a trailer weighing 30 tons is 13.5 tons of structure, leaving me 16.5 tons of cargo.  A 50 ton trailer is 22.5 tons of structural weight, and an 80 ton trailer is 50.4 tons.  These weights are the same as a Tracked vehicle, which doesn't make sense - I'm only building a flat bottom and axles, not a full structured vehicle.

Just for comparison, I googled how much a fifty ton trailer should weigh, and got the following results (bless you Google AI):

The weight of a 50 ton trailer can vary depending on the model and specifications, but here are some examples:
KSHRG-3-50T-Lite: This 3-axle hydraulic removable gooseneck trailer weighs 16,560 pounds.
Eager Beaver Trailer 50 GSL/BR: This lowboy trailer weighs 22,500 pounds.
Talbert 50CC-PS Hybrid Heavy Haul Trailer: This trailer weighs 18,680 pounds.
Heavy-duty 50-ton truck trailer: This trailer has a kerb weight of 8,000 kilograms.

That's between eight and ten metric tons for a trailer's structural weight, instead of 22.5 tons.  Looking at 80 ton trailers, they weigh in at 51,000 pounds, or about 23 metric tons empty.  A 30 ton trailer only weighs 13,500 pounds.  The M1000 HET trailer carries a 70 ton load with a structural weight of 22.9 tons, so that'd be around a 93 ton trailer - about the same weight as an 80 tonner, just able to carry a heavier load.  I'd say at a glance, whack the trailer weights down to about 35-40% of what they're currently listed at to reflect their lack of structural elements and come more in line with the real world weights.

[Daryk]

That math looks good to me!

And I see the Italians put the gas (or water) where it could be shot... not something I'd want to drive! ;D

[ANS Kamas P81]

One does not accuse Mussolini's military of having competent vehicle designs...

[Elmoth]

All vehicles in the desert used this kind of storage. It was mandated by the long ranges they had to travel. You needed gas. the LRDG did the same.

[DOC_Agren]

You'd have what looks like a three or four ton grav tank with an APW/H on a rear pintle mount.  Too high tech for the Fringe, but grav tanks have been written up before.  Let's see...kinda reminds me of the Sahariana armored car the Italians made in WWII.

What brought it to my mind was Spaceballs was on TV
Or this
https://silodrome.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Kubelwagen.jpg
and yes there are units who use GEV in the Fringe.. 

[ANS Kamas P81]

There's GEVs, yes - Ground Effect Vehicles.  There are not grav tanks - vehicles that warp gravitational fields so that they fall forward instead of down, and use that to fly.

[chanman]

Maybe something like a HESA Bavar 2, widened to provide a seat beside the pilot, with the passenger operating some kind of flexible machine gun


Crossed with

[Daryk]

As bad ass as those guys look, they're still subject to their gas leaking out when they get shot at.  If small arms can mission kill you by hitting something the size of your vehicle instead of you, that's a BAD place to be.

[ANS Kamas P81]

You got anything saying how much the Bavar 2 weighs and how fast it is?  I can't find anything on a Google search.

[chanman]

You got anything saying how much the Bavar 2 weighs and how fast it is?  I can't find anything on a Google search.

No clue. It was hard to find even clear photos. But by size and configuration, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collins_X-112 should get you in the ballpark

[ANS Kamas P81]

I tried to make the GEV but ran into an issue in Tankreator 1.664 where GEV structure weight reads 50% higher than it should.  I attached a screenshot showing the weight of the structure in the worksheet and the added up total.  If I switch type to Tracked, Wheeled, ACV, or other vehicle types it shows the structure weight properly but GEVs are adding 50% mass no matter what the TL is.  Is this OpenOffice screwing up, or is there a formula somewhere that needs to be adjusted?

[DOC_Agren]

There's GEVs, yes - Ground Effect Vehicles.  There are not grav tanks - vehicles that warp gravitational fields so that they fall forward instead of down, and use that to fly.

I'm looking at it as a GEV not a grav tank.  But the "serious" question was the .50 in the back, how would firing effect this thing moving. 

[Failure16]

As bad ass as those guys look, they're still subject to their gas leaking out when they get shot at.  If small arms can mission kill you by hitting something the size of your vehicle instead of you, that's a BAD place to be.

At the end of the day, there are only so many places you can put dozens or hundreds of gallons of liquids on what is effectively a light/medium truck that is also carrying 3-5 big, tough hombres and enough automatic weapons, explosives, and sundry pyrotechnic trouble to equip an infantry section or three. If the fuel is diesel, it won't be a fire risk anyways. The cans that get shot get drunk or fill the tanks first.

Kamas, I am running trailer tests but am finding either the smaller trailers are just about right on, or come in underweight. I will have to make a spreadsheet of as many trailers I can find and correlate trailer weight vs. GVW and then see how it will all mesh with the current Tankreator formulae. I do not intend to make a Trailkreator, so that last part is pretty important. It is conceivable that there is a "close-enough" ratio of trailer-mass-to-cargo-mass in which case it would be a sub-program within the overarching sheet. But I'm not holding my breath on if that will work.

DOC, Kamas is entirely correct. Tankreator can certainly handle grav tanks; it was engineered to make RenLeg grav tanks as one of its design considerations. But such beasts do not exist in the Fringe, which is solidly TL3-5-going-into-6. So, 1950s to just beyond our current horizon, with some places being a further step beyond even that.

I attached a TOG Aeneas Light Tank to show it can be done. An older version of the file, yes, but even if remade it wouldn't change much, if at all.

[ANS Kamas P81]

I'm looking at it as a GEV not a grav tank.  But the "serious" question was the .50 in the back, how would firing effect this thing moving.

It wouldn't; .50 doesn't have the power to push vehicles around.  It's got a lot of kick on a people scale, but not so much when it comes to heavier targets.  It'd be like firing a .50 from a jeep, it might shake it a little bit but that's all you're getting as far as recoil.

I suppose the issue I was having was only with the heavyweight trailers like tank transporters; I didn't try making lightweight ones like you had there.  I wanted to see how heavy a 50 ton cargo weight trailer would be to transport my tanks around on Gensoukyou...and it's going to be pretty heavy; the full weight of a 20 ton M1070 and its trailer is rated at 108 metric tons.  As a quick glance, a 20 ton TL3 wheeled cargo vehicle with a final MA of 8 and light armor has 6.76 tons left over.  Maybe add an extra entry alongside the Lift Hoist and Winch for a Trailer Hitch, where you can choose how heavy a trailer your tractor can tow?  It could be a 10% figure, so a 40 ton trailer would require a 4 ton Trailer Hitch.  That'd represent the weight of the physical mount plus a reinforced engine, transmission, and brakes to haul the heavier load.  That 20 ton armored tractor example could mount a 6.7 ton Trailer Hitch for a Trailer up to 67 tons, which would be built separately in Tankreator to determine how much weight it can carry. 

Just spitballing ideas here, trying to keep things relatively simple.  It's complex enough working out how much your trailer's going to weigh and then balancing that against a tractor vehicle to tow it, but I get the feeling I'm on the right track with that 10% Trailer Hitch concept.