Armor Wars

[Tasha]

Re: Armor Wars

 

It's also important to remember that the design cycle for a tank - from any nation in that era - was 2+ years. So the Sherman went into production in 1941, based on the lessons observed in the battles of Poland and France - when the German "Heavy tank" was the Pzkw III! Most of the German armoured forces in those campaigns were Pzkw I and II light tanks. The Sherman was more than a match for any of those. The Germans, however, had already started upgrading their forces, and their answer (the Pzkw IV) was a fair match for the Sherman. However, they met the T-34 in 1940 and by 1942, their answers (in the form of the Tiger and Panther series) were rolling off the line. The Pershing was designed in response to the Sherman's problems with these tanks - and it started rolling off the lines a couple of years later. Essentially, every generation of tanks was built to beat the opposing tanks of the generation before: it was merely the production lag that saw Shermans facing off against Tigers

 

The problem wasn't that US troops could not have maintained and run a more complex tank: UK tankers routinely did so and US crews who used UK-designed weaponry had no problem maintaining it. US military personnel also had no problem managing much more sophisticated equipment. There was, I assure you, nothing in the design specs to suggest that the tank should be "dumbed down". The Sherman was built the way it was, because it was the best the US could produce - at the time. The Pershing was a far better (and more sophisticated) tank because a couple of years later that was the best that could be produced - at the time.

 

Even the piddly little tanks that Tasha mentioned (not the Sheridan - that was a postwar medium tank armed with a weird hybrid gun, but I guess she meant the Stuart) were the best that could be produced at the time. Back then, US military strategy was based on the defence of the Western Hemisphere - which meant a strong navy and a relatively small and weak army, with what armoured capacity existed being strictly infantry support. It was assumed (correctly, at the time) that no enemy existed that could land armoured forces in the US. It wasn't that better weapons existed that weren't being put into production - it was that the US had no official plans to have armoured divisions at all. As a result, they had no significant armour production capacity (No lie: in 1940, when the Wehrmacht struck west the US army had only 28 modern tanks - 18 medium and 10 light. Belgium had 5 times as many, plus some heavies!) Of course, once the Germans demonstrated what armoured divisions could do ... everybody started building them, just as everybody would put battlesuits into production, once they had demonstrated what they could do .... if they possibly could. That was the point I was making: politics only plays a significant role for weapons systems when their potential is doubtful. Nothing changes minds like success.

 

cheers, Mark

 

I actually meant the M3 (I should really learn to double check my info before posting)

[Markdoc]

Re: Armor Wars

 

I actually meant the M3 (I should really learn to double check my info before posting)

 

Ah - OK. But the M3 wasn't a pre-war design: it was commissioned after the Battle of France made the current US weakness in armour clear, and it was intentionally designed as a "build-it-as-quick-as-you-can" stopgap to allow the US to field a medium tank while the Sherman was being designed. It was never intended to be produced in huge numbers. The first one wasn't produced until mid-1941 and production was wound down in 1942 as the Sherman became available.

 

A better example of what you are looking for might be the T26 series - the tank series that eventually gave rise to the Pershing and latter the Patton. Their development was slowed by politics - especially by General McNair (head of Army ground forces), who still held to the idea that tanks were there to support infantry and that the US army didn't need a heavy tank with a high velocity gun: that the Sherman was good enough. The British, who had had much more experience facing german armour, were calling for better armed tanks (eventually they gave up on the US and produced the Firefly as a stopgap, before their own Comet tanks came into service - superior to the Sherman in pretty much every way). However that opposition suddenly collapsed as soon as US forces had to face German armour in strength during the Ardennes campaign.

 

It's like I said: bureaucratic foot-dragging is only possible when the use or potential of a new military technology is theoretical. Once practical application is demonstrated, that's the end of it.

 

cheers, Mark

[Spence]

Re: Armor Wars

 

I find that as with anything that requires suspension of Disbelief, it is better to just ignore the issue rather than try to justify it. Justifications invite people to examine them.

 

As others have pointed out, in the Iron Man movie Stark built a functional suit of Power Armor in a cave with scraps while Stark Industries couldn't get one to work when they had funding and a prototype to reverse-engineer. Stark meanwhile went on to build two more *vastly* improved revisions of the suit in his (admittedly pretty tricked out) basement by himself.

 

Mad scientist effect? Mutant power? Cosmic Key radiation? Doesn't matter. It works. And once the suit is built, Iron Man II shows us Rhodey can put it on and use it just as well as Stark while Hammer Industries has just as much luck building knockoffs as Stane's R&D crew did in the first movie.

 

This is *really* a "either live with the genre conventions or change genres" type of a question. There is a lot of Anime that show us that an "everyone with the $$ has power armor" world is very workable. These just aren't superhero stories.

 

 

Also, just to stir the pot a bit

 

What defines a suit versus a mech versus a vehicle?

 

Most things called power suits or power armor are not, they are actually small mechs. If my hand is actually inside the gauntlet and pressure from my fingers inside of the actual armored finger causes the finger to move, that is a suit.

 

But if my finger presses on/activates a sensor that causes a hand shaped appendage located 10 inches to 3 feet (or more) away from my actual hand, it is a mechanical frame responding to a control interface, or a mecha.

 

An actual power suit would be hideously expensive because all of the technology must be crammed into a small space, not to mention ultra strong physical structure reduced in volume to fit. After all, if my elbow joint doesn't perfectly line up with the suits elbow, I either cannot bend it or my arm snaps.

 

With a mecha, even a small one, the larger frame gives me more space to fit structure, motivators and all the fiddly bits. But even with the most diligently fine tuned control interface, all that size and mass will impact the overall units agility/maneuverability.

A less agile unit is a easier target, which begets the need for more defense, armor etc. That in turn escalates overall size/mass which in turn reduces maneuverability. A vicious circle.

 

If you keep escalating the mecha design, eventually it becomes a vehicle. Oddly shaped yes, but merely a vehicle that no longer has anything near the mobility or ease of control that was the very point of developing the power suit which evolved into mecha in the first place. And you'll find yourself back at the tank. Why waste tonnage for legs that do not give agility and have vulnerable joints when tracks/gravetics do the same and can be better protected?

 

So why not large concentrations of power suits?

 

1) Power suit, hideously expensive and has to be meticulously fitted to one highly trained pilot who cannot be too tall or too short, too fat or too thin, etc. In order to change pilots you need to perform and extensive resizing and calibration to accommodate the new pilot.

 

2) Mecha, able to interchange pilots much easier. But they still require extensive training to be able to easily compensate for the mass and size while still maintaining fluid easy maneuvering. But the very form exposes itself to enemy fire and it is harder to hide or go 'hull down'.

 

3) Vehicle (tank). If I can build a power suit, I can put the same weapon and defensive technology into a tighter package without diffusing by imitating human form. Teh added bonus is I can easily interchange crews.

 

If a suits 3 cm of unobtanium armor is fantastic, the mecha's 2 inches is much much better. And the supertanks 12 inches steals the show.

 

So which is better? The answer is simple. None of them.

 

Instead, a culture capable of building a suit will use all three, each unit supporting each other and fulfilling specific roles.

 

Suits to scout and probe. Mecha to be highly maneuverable in multiple terrains and carry wide varieties of weapon packages to target and engage in support of the suits. Tanks/Other Armor to provide heavy support and a fall back should things go into the toilet.

 

my 2 cents.

[wick]

Re: Armor Wars

 

I did not approv of the scene in Iron Man I when he fights the Tank (it definitely stretches my suspension of disbelief). Even against an old soviet tank firing HE rounds (lets not get into sabot.) Stark should have sent into GM discretion land. And then his tiny little missles blowing the tank up....riiiiiight!!! The problem is that the Ironman is far far far more powerful than a tank.

 

Would a roughly large human figure flying in the air be extremely difficult difficult to hit with the main gun of a tank? Yes (easily believable.) Should Stark's Armor provide much protection in the event he suffered a direct hit? No. It looks like they just need to incorporate the suits Armor plates and weapons into a tank and you would have an unstoppable tank that even Iron Man could not defeat.

 

Power Armor/suits: used at infantry level

Mecha/Tanks: Vehicle level. Not sure why people would think Mechs would be better weapons platforms than a tank. sometimes simpiler is better and the tank can have more armor and heavier weapons. Any tech improvements in one design can be integrated in the others.

 

Evolution of Tanks in land warfare: Tanks are becoming more obsolete becuase of a few factors:

A. Man portable weapons that can destroy/ disable tanks. This ranges from rockets all the way to IEDs.

B. Nature of Modern warfare. Tanks are not much good for peacekeeping or counter insurgency missions.

C. Susceptability to aircraft attacks.

[Nuclear Fridge]

Re: Armor Wars

 

I have to go with wick on the 'Tank Turkey Shoot' scene. Come on, his armour got gnawed on by the fighter jets' cannons; there was visible damage to the surface when he returned home.

Assuming that the tank gunner wasn't firing a can of beans at him, the impact alone would have turned him into tomato paste in a tin.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: Armor Wars

 

1) Clearly Iron Man lives in a universe where aircraft machine guns are 4d6 autofire attacks, while tank cannons are 2d6 RKA. I think either that, or he has vunerability to aircraft machine guns. And remember, his rocket was just a special effect of his 8d6 RKA, so what it actually looked like wasn't a big deal.

 

2) I actually go with the Star Ship Troopers definition of Suit vs. Mecha, specifically the distinction that a suit you can 'just wear' while a mecha you must pilot. In HERO terms, one is a vehicle and one is an OIF (or OIAD). In SFX terms, that means that a suit is anything you control by moving your own body, instead of with hands/foot/neuronet.

 

Example: Elementals (from Battle Tech): Suits

Battlemech: Mech

[Yansuf]

Re: Armor Wars

 

A better example of what you are looking for might be the T26 series - the tank series that eventually gave rise to the Pershing and latter the Patton. Their development was slowed by politics - especially by General McNair (head of Army ground forces), who still held to the idea that tanks were there to support infantry and that the US army didn't need a heavy tank with a high velocity gun: that the Sherman was good enough. The British, who had had much more experience facing german armour, were calling for better armed tanks (eventually they gave up on the US and produced the Firefly as a stopgap, before their own Comet tanks came into service - superior to the Sherman in pretty much every way). However that opposition suddenly collapsed as soon as US forces had to face German armour in strength during the Ardennes campaign.

 

Actually, I believe the foot dragging stopped when General McNair was KIA (July 25, 1944) in Operation Cobra.

[matrix3]

Re: Armor Wars

 

I have to go with wick on the 'Tank Turkey Shoot' scene. Come on, his armour got gnawed on by the fighter jets' cannons; there was visible damage to the surface when he returned home.

Assuming that the tank gunner wasn't firing a can of beans at him, the impact alone would have turned him into tomato paste in a tin.

 

Ummm...he wasn't hit by the tank shell. At least, that's how I understood his movement to the side as it fired. He dodged and looked behind him. That tiny missile blowing up the tank is a little ridiculous, but we are talking about a suit of armor that A) isn't aerodynamic in the least, yet can hit supersonic speeds; and is powered by a palm-sized power source with an output greater than 3 nuclear power plants (at least, that's what the figure I recall).

[Markdoc]

Re: Armor Wars

 

Actually' date=' I believe the foot dragging stopped when General McNair was KIA (July 25, 1944) in Operation Cobra.[/quote']

 

Nope. McNair had been a major part of the footdragging, but he wasn't the only one, by any stretch of the imagination (in fact his position had been pretty much the default, both in the UK and US: in both cases, that changed as reality intruded) and his unfortunate experience of friendly fire didn't end opposition. Moreover, things had started moving even before that: after their experience with panthers in Normandy, he had actually been specifically requested by the head of ETO to stop the foot dragging and start shipping upgunned M4s. Post Battle of the Bulge, all opposition ceased and the T26 program was fast-tracked (so to speak ) The way that German armour had torn through the US defenders virtually unscathed in the initial phases of the battle made any claims that the US didn't need heavy armour impossible to defend.

 

cheers, Mark

[Greywind]

Re: Armor Wars

 

Looked like a flak burst to me.

[Beast]

Re: Armor Wars

 

beehive round

would shred a plane but not an armored suit

 

Looked like a flak burst to me.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Armor Wars

 

Whose to say the Tanks wouldn't be better?

Nice repulsors, look what we did with the one we mounted on this tank!

we have more weapons on this baby and a dedicated crew so we can track better. Oh and that alloy you made is wonderful and even better as 3" armor plating than as our flex suit.

[Markdoc]

Re: Armor Wars

 

Whose to say the Tanks wouldn't be better?

Nice repulsors, look what we did with the one we mounted on this tank!

we have more weapons on this baby and a dedicated crew so we can track better. Oh and that alloy you made is wonderful and even better as 3" armor plating than as our flex suit.

 

Lose the tracks and mount it on some of those repulsors, so that it can fly, and now you're talking!

 

That makes perfect sense - but it also leads to the world of superscience flying tanks, etc, which is what comic writers are struggling to avoid. Who needs Iron Man when the military can field an armoured division with each tank being more powerful than his suit? Any villain the military can't take down is going to be more than a match for the heroes in a fight ...

 

I cheated when I ran supers games - anyone who wanted to play a gadgeteer had to supply me with a reason why the tech couldn't simply be mass-manufactured. The one dissenter (who wanted to play a gadgeteer) folded when I pointed out that if it could be mass manufactured, it would be - and did he want to be faced by hordes of agents wielding the same powers he had? He still played a gadgeteer (and playboy billionaire) but we settled on the rationale that his own gadgets required more finesse and skill to use, and more rare and expensive elements to produce than the more mundane ones he made his fortune with, and so could not be mass-produced.

 

cheers, Mark

[Rapier]

Re: Armor Wars

 

Lose the tracks and mount it on some of those repulsors, so that it can fly, and now you're talking!

 

That makes perfect sense - but it also leads to the world of superscience flying tanks, etc, which is what comic writers are struggling to avoid. Who needs Iron Man when the military can field an armoured division with each tank being more powerful than his suit? Any villain the military can't take down is going to be more than a match for the heroes in a fight ...

 

I cheated when I ran supers games - anyone who wanted to play a gadgeteer had to supply me with a reason why the tech couldn't simply be mass-manufactured. The one dissenter (who wanted to play a gadgeteer) folded when I pointed out that if it could be mass manufactured, it would be - and did he want to be faced by hordes of agents wielding the same powers he had? He still played a gadgeteer (and playboy billionaire) but we settled on the rationale that his own gadgets required more finesse and skill to use, and more rare and expensive elements to produce than the more mundane ones he made his fortune with, and so could not be mass-produced.

 

cheers, Mark

 

That's similar to how I've handled Magic in my campaign. Witches/Warlocks are the subset of mages that deal with talismans and magical items. You can often create a magical item that is superior to a technological one, but the effort required to create it (and the cost of the materials) is so high that it makes mass production impossible. So no magical, flying tanks in my universe!

[Spence]

Re: Armor Wars

 

I think the wrong question is being asked. Or at least framed incorrectly.

 

In the end regardless if you are referring to real life or comic based super-science, the fundamental question that is raised when creating a weapons system, is "what do we want it to do" or "what is its purpose". The main reason why I say regardless of real world or super-science is that the same needs apply for both. Any super-science I can apply to a suit, can also be applied to everything else, so we are right back to purpose.

 

Why do we need a power suit, and what would it do?

 

Why do we need a Mech, and what would it do?

 

Why do we need a AFV, and what would it do?

 

Why do we need a Tank, and what would it do?

 

There have been a few statements about one being 'better' than other. Or how one is magically obsolete. But the reality is that all 'concepts' are still valid and intact.

 

On the modern battlefield the Infantryman, the light vehicle, the AFV and the Tank all still hold the positions they held before. Emphasis may slide, but none will be disappearing anytime soon.

 

In a world where a power suit is possible, that same technology will make Mecha possible and be incorporated into light vehicles, AFV and Tanks.

 

None are better than the other, just have different purposes.

 

A power suit is limited by its size, you can only pack so much into that small a volume. Larger units will always be able to hold more effective versions of each piece of gear and carry more counter-measures.

 

AFV's and Tanks can pack more in, but lose mobility.

 

Mecha should provide a bridge between the mobility of the suit and the concentrated power of the tank. Though a mega-multi-ton ten story tall super mecha isn't really in the cards. Smaller mecha such as we saw in Patlabor or the small military ones in Full Metal Panic are more likely.

 

In the end I would see a version of the power suit becoming 'not unusual'. But it wouldn't be the super duper tricked out version of Ironman. But rather a non-flying protective system with augmented mobility to allow a human better survivability, like the current infantry systems being developed today, but much better.

 

Light vehicles, AFV's and tanks will keep their current missions, just be more refined and improve capabilities.

 

That only vehicle we don't have now, but that will probably make an appearance soon, is the mech. Especially in urban environments, they will be able to bridge the gap between the mobility but lightly armed infantry and the clumsy slow mobility but heavier armament of a AFV/Tank.

 

In the end I would go with all of the types existing but just like regular real world systems you would have a very few premium versions and a large number of lesser versions. Building one fully capable Ironman suit may be extremely expensive and completely unsupportable for general use. But a non-flying, not as strong, not as fast, uses external weapons, etc, could be built for a fraction of the cost. While still expensive, they would still be cheap in the long run.

 

Everything we do gets better with experience. In other words we make mistakes and learn from them. The problem on the modern battlefield, is that soldiers rarely get the chance to learn from the mistake. Once wounded in battle, they rarely return to combat duty. But someone in protective armor could survive the hit and learn from it. From initial recruitment to first deployment to a field unit a single soldier costs over $250,000 not including equipment. Training, support, pay and such. And that is for a green troop that may or may not possess the needed warrior mentality.

 

A basic suit that stops the damage of a grenade or a bullet from taking out a new troop, just paid for itself. And the troop that survives it physically unharmed, but with the primal experience that cannot be taught or simulated, becomes worth 5 or 6 green troops. The blend of confidence and caution that comes with really knowing you equipment works as advertised and how to avoid what you did wrong the last time.

 

In the end, the question is not "which is better", but rather "which combination of them all meets the mission requirement".

[Markdoc]

Re: Armor Wars

 

I think the wrong question is being asked. Or at least framed incorrectly.

 

In the end regardless if you are referring to real life or comic based super-science, the fundamental question that is raised when creating a weapons system, is "what do we want it to do" or "what is its purpose". The main reason why I say regardless of real world or super-science is that the same needs apply for both. Any super-science I can apply to a suit, can also be applied to everything else, so we are right back to purpose.

 

I've snipped out the rest, because that isn't the question being asked - the question the OP posed - but which is as old as Reed Richards himself - is "If super tech is available, why don't people do exactly what you describe and field militaries composed of battlesuits, mecha and gravtanks? Also, where is my flying car?"

 

The real answer is "Because we want Superheroes in a recognizable modern setting, not a cyberpunk or science fiction one" It's why Marvel comics still have all the recognizable countries, and the same international debates and the same religions, even though pretty much everyone knows that aliens and other gods really do exist, interstellar travel is possible and that there really are other dimensions. It's why after Earth has provided asylum and protection to a galactic empress and then Earthlings helped her get her empire back, nobody ever says "Uh, you have tens of thousands of starships - how about lending us a couple of engineers and a couple of your really old ships, so we're not trapped on his mudball? You know, we have saved your whole empire three times now - plus you married one of us. How about a little help here?" The Earthlings who do have their own starships (and there's a surprising number of them) keep them tucked away in their garages for the occasional jaunt, along with their flying cars, low orbit-capable planes, powerful non-polluting power sources, highly advanced medical facilities, alien visitors, etc etc.

 

None of this makes any sense. The best way to deal with this is the way the comic book writers do which is to simply politely never refer to it ever again. There simply isn't a good explanation.

 

cheers, Mark

[Spence]

Re: Armor Wars

 

I've snipped out the rest' date=' because that [b']isn't[/b] the question being asked - the question the OP posed - but which is as old as Reed Richards himself - is "If super tech is available, why don't people do exactly what you describe and field militaries composed of battlesuits, mecha and gravtanks? Also, where is my flying car?"

 

 

None of this makes any sense. The best way to deal with this is the way the comic book writers do which is to simply politely never refer to it ever again. There simply isn't a good explanation.

 

cheers, Mark

 

Snippage mine.

 

And you missed my entire point.

 

"I think the wrong question is being asked. Or at least framed incorrectly."

 

That would include the OP.

 

And you are right that this is one of those things that is carefully ignored in comics. However if one does want to ask it. Then the question needs to be re-framed.

 

IMO anyway

[Tasha]

Re: Armor Wars

 

Well if the question is "How would the government use the Technologies devised by users of Powered Armor?"

 

One thing I would like to remind people of: AFAIK there IS a mass produced Armor System that is used by Law Enforcement in the Champions Universe. Turtle Armor at least used to be part of the setting.

 

I seem to remember that the government is currently experimenting with various exo-skeletons with the idea of making it easier for soldiers to carry a heavy load longer distances and without becoming as tired. If we could get those working well enough and overcome issues of how to keep them charged/fueled up while on the field or at least having power sources that are long lasting. I could see something like that becoming armored to protect the soldier better. Then perhaps allowing soldiers to carry/fire better weapons (larger calibre, with larger magazines. If it became fully enclosed, it would have to be air conditioned or other cooled/heated. I wouldn't want to run around the middle east in a fully enclosed set of armor that had not cooling.

 

Hmmm sounds like something that I might need to write up later

[Greywind]

Re: Armor Wars

 

I wouldn't want to run around the middle east in a fully enclosed set of armor that had not cooling.

One only needs to look at the history of the Crusades and see how many knights didn't actually make it there.

[Spence]

Re: Armor Wars

 

Pretty much. And you would see the evolution of mission specific configurations. Joined eventually by larger more massive versions and vehicles designed to support each other.

 

And I'd like to see your write-ups on this. You always have an interesting take on things.

[Tasha]

Re: Armor Wars

 

Pretty much. And you would see the evolution of mission specific configurations. Joined eventually by larger more massive versions and vehicles designed to support each other.

 

And I'd like to see your write-ups on this. You always have an interesting take on things.

 

Thanks, I'll probably work on it tonight. Too busy cleaning house (Spring cleaning comes late when it won't stop raining) I have some definite ideas.

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: Armor Wars

 

I did not approv of the scene in Iron Man I when he fights the Tank (it definitely stretches my suspension of disbelief). Even against an old soviet tank firing HE rounds (lets not get into sabot.) Stark should have sent into GM discretion land. And then his tiny little missles blowing the tank up....riiiiiight!!! The problem is that the Ironman is far far far more powerful than a tank.

 

Would a roughly large human figure flying in the air be extremely difficult difficult to hit with the main gun of a tank? Yes (easily believable.) Should Stark's Armor provide much protection in the event he suffered a direct hit? No. It looks like they just need to incorporate the suits Armor plates and weapons into a tank and you would have an unstoppable tank that even Iron Man could not defeat.

 

The tank might have been using canister - a large fragmentation round designed to be used against infantry. This makes it easier to hit Iron Man, but doesn't do enough damage to get through his armor (not that the tank crew would know that at first). When they load up an anti-armor round, they miss.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Armor Wars

 

And of course, Stark was rather shook up after the tank hit him and knocked him into the ground.

 

As for Stark's "tiny little missile" blowing up the tank, remember that this is a Tony Stark designed missile. For all we know it was configured to explode the tank's own munitions or fuel using some type of EM emission, which modern American tanks are likely shielded against, but not the Soviet-era vehicles employed by an Afghan warlord.

[Greywind]

Re: Armor Wars

 

And we saw how good HammerTech was...

[Tasha]

Re: Armor Wars

 

And we saw how good HammerTech was...

 

While that was a funny scene in Iron ManII. I would imagine that HammerTech is at least somewhat reliable. Otherwise it would have never been procured by the Joint Chiefs for the Armed Services. I can see it being larger and less high tech (more clunky) than StarkTech's equipment.