Welcome to the HeavyMetalPro Forums

It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 1:01 am

All times are UTC-04:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Combat Vehicle crews
PostPosted: Tue Sep 27, 2016 4:36 pm 
Offline
Antisocial General
Antisocial General

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 8:35 am
Posts: 7883
Location: MLC, Lyran Alliance.
In CBT, Combat Vehicles or CV's have one crew member per fifteen tons. This can get really weird once one starts thinking about crew positions in real world fighting vehicles.

In the WW1 era, the first armored vehicles often had very large (British Mark series, German A7V, etc.) or very small (Whippet, FT-17, etc.) crews. The commander and at least one driver were and still are the only constants; gunners, loaders, a radio operator if the vehicle had a radio, a mechanic running the engines, a second driver, et al, were all highly variable depending on the design. In the smaller tanks, the commander and gunner were often the only two crew members, and the commander did multiple duty as a gunner, loader, and so on.

As armor evolved in the Inter-War and World War 2 eras, tank crews stabilized into crews of three to five, depending on the nation and design. Commander, driver, gunner, loader, and radio operator were the traditional five positions in American tanks; some countries had their own configurations (German tanks generally didn't have radio operators, and Soviet T-34's didn't have gunners). It was generally realized (outside France) that having more people (two or three) in the turret was good; it improved situational awareness by having more eyes in the periscopes, and eased the workload by simple division. Commanders became more free to focus on being commanders as gunners and loaders fully took over those duties. Due to the size and complexity of radios in the pre-transistor era, many vehicles still had separate radio operators at least through the Korean War era and into the early Cold War. SPG's usually had extra loaders, due to the size of the shells and separate loading of shell and charge.

Progressing through the Cold War to today, AFV's now almost universally have a crew of three (commander, driver, gunner, with an autoloader) or four (human loader instead of autoloader) and the driver is usually the only one not in the turret. SPG's may or may not still have the extra loaders depending on their level of technology; the latest autoloading SPG's like the PzH 2000 don't need them. Modern radios, networking, displays, and other technologies, have made the specialist radio operator virtually extinct. Unmanned turrets and armored "crew capsules" are being tried with on new designs to afford greater protection for the crew, usually in conjunction with autoloaders and greater automation to minimize the number of crew. A fine example of this trend is Russia's new T-14 Armata MBT; it has only two crewmen, a driver and multitasking commander, who sit in an armored capsule surrounded by electronics; the turret is unmanned.

Now, even allowing for the fact that technology went backwards for a while during the various darker ages of the CBT universe, it seems that based on real trends, the state of vehicle crews in the CBT canon doesn't make sense. Crew size in canon is purely based on the size of the vehicle -- not history, roles, or anything else.

In small to midsized vehicles, at least up to 45 tons, it's easy to think in believable terms of real world armor crews. That little 20-ton light tank has a driver and commander, who multitasks as a gunner and handles most things not having to do with driving. That 45-ton medium tank has a commander, gunner, and driver. CBT futuresque automation, sensors, networks and so forth enable these smaller crews to multitask efficiently.

Once we hit fifty tons and add that fourth crew member, now things get tricky. That fourth guy is probably not a loader; most CBT weapons are either energy based or autoloading. This becomes even trickier once we hit >60 tons for the fifth crew member, and >75 tons for the sixth. Anything >90 tons has seven crew on board! What are all these guys doing?

In some cases, it can be easy to rationalize the extra crew. My custom Mangonel SPG design weighs 70 tons, so it has a crew of five. It has the following crew:

- Commander. The MFIC of the vehicle as a whole.
- Driver. Sitting up front, slightly nervous as he stands by for "scoot" orders.
- Main Gunner. The guy having all the fun, actually laying and firing the artillery.
- Secondary Gunner. I need to come up with a better name for this position. He is up in the Mangonel's small self-defense cupola turret, watching the outgoing fire and keeping an eye out for trouble, such as rear area raiders or incoming fire. If he can see where outgoing shells land, he can visually direct fire. He is bored, and hopes to stay that way.
- Plotter. This guy is down in the Mangonel's fighting compartment. He has an electronic map table in front of him and is networked with the battery and spotters out in the field. He coordinates with the commander and gunner to put fire support where and when it's needed.

In regular tanks, however, the extra positions can be harder to rationalize. One solution I have used is the "system operator", a position sort of like the tank mechanics of old, or an aircraft's flight engineer. CBT tanks are more mechanically and electronically complex than real tanks today, so he eases the load on other crew members by keeping an eye on all the various loading systems, the cooling system for the fusion reactor, shifting the gears with a hammer like in old Soviet tanks, or whatever. One could similarly rationalize a "sensor operator" or equivalent position in heavily electronic vehicles, like a C3 command unit or multi-sensored scout, harkening back a bit to the old-fashioned radio operators. But even then, that still leaves extra people in the larger vehicles.

I think that should stir the pot enough for now. Let's hear some thoughts, people...

_________________
Be careful what you wish for. I might let you have it. :evil:


Last edited by Shades of Grey on Fri Sep 30, 2016 8:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Combat Vehicle crews
PostPosted: Tue Sep 27, 2016 6:28 pm 
Offline
Stratego
Stratego

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2001 8:00 pm
Posts: 10855
Location: Ft. Hood Texas
Best I have heard beyond the whole FASA etc...lost their sense of proportion comment a while back.

_________________
Karagin-

Darkness is a friend of mine. Sometimes I have to beat it back, or it would overwhelm me. Shirley Meier

[url]http://karagin12.livejournal.com/[/url]

The Wookiee, he's not wearing any pants!

[img]http://www.heavymetalpro.com/countries/mil-army.gif[/img]


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Combat Vehicle crews
PostPosted: Tue Sep 27, 2016 8:02 pm 
Offline
Master Sergeant
Master Sergeant

Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 11:28 am
Posts: 89
Shades of Grey, thanks for that history lesson of combat vehicles

i would like for the Maximum Tech (Revised) rule of additional crew personnel to be republished that allows for a person in a vehicle, that is making an attack and isn't driving or piloting, to be able to negate his or her attacker movement modifier


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Combat Vehicle crews
PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 12:55 am 
Offline
Loki
Loki

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2001 8:00 pm
Posts: 11444
Location: Minnesnowta
The 1 crew per 15 tons was not an original rule. It was added much later.

Before that the crew sizes were fluffed with most designs not having any stated number. And many of those with stated numbers do not match the new 15 ton rule.

Do you know when the 15 ton rule was introduced?

_________________
Medron Pryde - The Great and Terrible :blah:
[img]http://faileas.greywolf.googlepages.com/WOTD.png[/img]
[url=http://www.pryderockindustries.com]P.R.I.[/url] - The home of BattleTech programs and files
"I'm gonna Tea Party like its 1776." - Medron Pryde
Who is John Galt?


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Combat Vehicle crews
PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:53 am 
Offline
Antisocial General
Antisocial General

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 8:35 am
Posts: 7883
Location: MLC, Lyran Alliance.
No idea. But upon further examination as I have shown above, it's a dumb rule. Without further explanation, most vehicles >45 tons have extra crew with roles that require fluff to explain, and those explanations simply don't exist.

To be fair, CBT rules for combat vehicles are also rooted (however shallowly) in the real-world technology of WW2 and the Cold War. Beasts like the Challenger 2, Leclerc, and Armata, or the widespread growth of lighter elements like the Stryker, weren't even dreamed of in the 1980's when CityTech first hit. But even then, in real fighting vehicles, crews of three or four have been the universal standard no matter their size since at least the mid-late 1950's, so I'm really not sure what the heck they were thinking.

_________________
Be careful what you wish for. I might let you have it. :evil:


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Combat Vehicle crews
PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:59 pm 
Offline
Supreme Mugwump
Supreme Mugwump

Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 3:42 pm
Posts: 3183
I think the crew members should be dependent on the role and functioning of the vehicle.
1. the driver, unless the vehicle has an autopilot(wich I believe to be lostech)
2.the commander . his ability is used for initiative-rolls. he is also able to operate one light weapon(usually the machinegun or similar)
3. the gunner. his ability is used to determine if a shot of the main weapon hits the target. if there is no main weapon there should be no gunner. it does not matter if the main weapon is in a turret or in the hull.
4. second gunner. his ability is used to determine if weapons on the second position of weapons hit.
5. third gunner. if there is a third position of weapons (for example hull/main turret/second turret) his ability is used to determine tertiary weapon position success.
(there could be more gunners as there could be weapons in every side of the vehicle, in two turrets, in two sponsons or in one chin turret and last but not least missiles could be fired from the hull upwards)
6.C3 operator. while c3 could be automatized it might be possible to tune in/out of a C3 system when a C3 operator is on board, also the effects of jamming might be reduced/negated when a C3 operator could change frequency or finetune the communications.
7. ECM/ECCM operator. his ability might increase the effectivity of ECM/ECCM
8. sensor/probe operator. the readings of some probes must be combined and interpreted, the presence of a sensor/probe operator might increase the effectiveness of existing sensors/probes.
9. communications operator. needed to effectively communicate with ships in orbit or under similarly difficult conditions.
10.?? there may be more

for every crew member that is present above the normal one per 15 tons 150 kilos should be added to the weight
for every crew member below the normal number 150 kilos should be substracted.

Notes
- for every target engaged a gunner is needed to spread the fire, it does not matter what sort of weapons are used in this respect.
-one gunner is also needed for every position of guns active. if there are fewer gunners than gun positions one or more of the gun positions cannot fire in each round.
-weapons that are in the same turret/gun position and have to be aimed in the direction of the target can not fire at different targets.

_________________
typos and spelling-mistakes are property of the finder. english is not my mother-tongue.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Combat Vehicle crews
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2016 12:37 am 
Offline
Test Pilot
Test Pilot

Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2002 8:00 pm
Posts: 12373
Location: That flattop, up the well, overhead …
Quote:
Do you know when the 15 ton rule was introduced?
MaxTech, pp.28 … :wheelchair:

_________________
[url=http://www.hitbox.tv/hmpgoose]Goose - The Egyptian God of Frustration[/url]

"He closes his eyes and remembers the night splattered with brightness, the sudden flare of erupting fuel, the mad chase as, supersonic, he bobbed and weaved among the hills and valleys of the Ozarks, the laws on his tail, burning for home …"


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Combat Vehicle crews
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2016 10:34 am 
Offline
Master Sergeant
Master Sergeant

Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 11:28 am
Posts: 89
cobayashimaru, you probably wouldn't need that many extra crew personnel since a 'Mech doesn't need that many extra crew personnel; i do recommend additional crew personnel at the designer's discretion, though; your 150 kg rules are rules that i use, and yes, cockpit tonnages must be changed to be improved for those rules and these rules so that a cockpit for a conventional vehicle would most likey mass:
*0.25 tons of driver & controls & cushioned seat & unit's computer & communications & flower (to recycle carbon-dioxide for oxygen)
*0.25 tons of sensors
*0.15 tons of each additional person & cushioned seat & flower (add 0.10 tons per each additional computer for each additional person to use for unit)

also, conventional vehicle cockpits must be totally exchangeable with conventional fighter cockpits, 'Mech cockpits, or aerospace fighter cockpits; so additional cockpit tonnages for those latter three types of units are:

0.20 ejection (this may be removed and doesn't take up a critical slot)
0.30 structure for 3 ton cockpits (this doesn't take up a critical slot) xor 0.20 for 2 ton small cockpits xor 0.40 for 4 ton dual cockpits xor 0.50 for 5 ton small command console cockpits xor 0.60 for 6 ton cockpit command console cockpits xor 0.60 for 6 ton small dual command console cockpits
1.00 life support & extra room (extra room & part of the life support may be removed to create the small cockpit or both life support parts & extra room may be removed for a smaller and lighter cockpit).
1.00 the other life support part
The bottom sensors critical slot is replaced with neck actuator and a critical slot to a probot's neck actuator prevents it from doing a headbunting attack.

interesting that 'Mechs & conventional fighters aerospace fighters are vehicles according to AToW's Vehicle Trait


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Combat Vehicle crews
PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 5:08 am 
Offline
Antisocial General
Antisocial General

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 8:35 am
Posts: 7883
Location: MLC, Lyran Alliance.
coba: definitely agreed on multiple gunner positions, particularly when you're talking about tanks that have weapons firing from different batteries in multiple directions.

That was also part of the logic behind my "system operator" position idea, or in this case a "weapons operator". When you have a lot of weapons in one tank, especially when those weapons aren't all the same type, it's easy to imagine a complex labyrinth of feed systems, power cables, cooling systems et al, all full of potential jams, breakdowns, and other problems. Hence the extra person to watch the mechanical end of the weapons, so the gunner can focus on being the gunner.

_________________
Be careful what you wish for. I might let you have it. :evil:


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Combat Vehicle crews
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2016 5:02 pm 
Offline
Master Sergeant
Master Sergeant

Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 11:28 am
Posts: 89
Shades of Grey, yeah, nonmandatory 1+ persons at gunnery in vehicles including 'Mechs and conventional/aerospace fighters and other vehicles; i agree with that

so what is each of your opinions of a vehicle mounting multiple cockpits?


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Combat Vehicle crews
PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2016 7:41 am 
Offline
Antisocial General
Antisocial General

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 8:35 am
Posts: 7883
Location: MLC, Lyran Alliance.
Multiple cockpits? Nah. Unless maybe if you're talking about a hook and ladder fire truck, steering a huge vehicle from the front and back. But that would be more of a Support Vehicle thing, and may be obsolete by the time Battletech level computing comes around.

_________________
Be careful what you wish for. I might let you have it. :evil:


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Combat Vehicle crews
PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2016 12:43 pm 
Offline
Supreme Mugwump
Supreme Mugwump

Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 3:42 pm
Posts: 3183
more likely would be a cockpit with more than one seat.

_________________
typos and spelling-mistakes are property of the finder. english is not my mother-tongue.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Combat Vehicle crews
PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2016 6:10 pm 
Offline
Master Sergeant
Master Sergeant

Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 11:28 am
Posts: 89
separate or combined cockpits is what i meant; like in a combat vehicle there could be separate or combined cockpits; or like in a 'Mech multiple cockpits and who says that cockpits can't be in arm(s) or leg(s) for fun enjoyments also; spacecraft can also have multiple cockpits so if one is taken out (captured/destroyed) another cockpit can be used for spacecraft:)


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Combat Vehicle crews
PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2016 4:12 am 
Offline
Recruit
Recruit

Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2016 4:09 am
Posts: 1
Thanks for sharing such important historical combat post...

_________________
Graduated from Soran University with First Class Degree with Honours in Computer Science.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Combat Vehicle crews
PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 1:00 am 
Offline
Commanding General
Commanding General

Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:28 pm
Posts: 1828
The weird extra crewmen is something I've thought of before. Nice to see the discussion actually written out.

On most heavier tanks I can talk myself into a extra crew member, maybe two depending on the tank. A Schrek having the usual driver/commander/gunner, but also two "loaders" with one tweaking the PPCs, and the other the cooling system I can buy. The 6th crewman I guess I can fudge as a sensor operator, or whatever. On a Burke you have the same crew as the Schrek, except the 6th being a secondary gunner for the LRMs, though I don't see the SLDF needing the heat sink/PPC "loaders". When you get to something like a Brutus or Von Luckner I can buy all the extra crewmen become gunners for secondary weapons.

How do you see technology level coming into this? The ancient Estevez uses 6 crewmen(in a diesel powered age of war tank with a single maingun, 2 coax MGs and 2 smoke grenade launchers, so basically a modern MBT with 2-3 extra bodies ), the same as a Morrigu. I would think the higher tech would count for something.

Maybe it would make more sense to have the extra crew come with extra weapons? A Drillson having more crew than a Vedette would make more sense to me then a Schrek and DI Schmidt having the same crew number.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Combat Vehicle crews
PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:21 am 
Offline
Master Tech & Major Scrounge
Master Tech & Major Scrounge

Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2002 8:00 pm
Posts: 3551
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Someone once said many hands make light work.

The thing about small vehicle crews is the workload. In the real world tanks are maintenance intensive machines; 2 crewmen can't hope to maintain an MBT and remain alert around the clock. And typical maintenance sections attached to a tank company are just that, a section/squad of 7 to 10 soldiers. They are there to assist the crew, not do the maintenance for the crew. The plan with real world 2 crew MBTs is to bring forward a relief crew regularly. Not realistic for many combat situations.

In BT units can be spread of huge areas and who knows where your support squads are. BT tanks are still very maintenance intensive so why not put at least some of your tech section for a vehicle on the vehicle? More hands to share the maintenance and combat workload.

:2cents:

_________________
[img]http://www.heavymetalpro.com/countries/flag-us.gif[/img] [img]http://www.heavymetalpro.com/countries/mil-navy.gif[/img] [img]http://www.heavymetalpro.com/countries/mil-seabees.gif[/img]


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Combat Vehicle crews
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2017 4:28 pm 
Offline
Commanding General
Commanding General

Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:28 pm
Posts: 1828
The idea of bringing your tech support with you doesn't fit well in BT, at least to my ears. First off it endangers your techs, especially in earlier time periods. Second the techs would be very limited in things like tools. Lots of the tank maintenance in the real world needs lifts and things to make it happen. Then you have the issue with tech levels. A 30 ton XL Fusion powered HT only needs two crewman, but an old school Demolisher needs a lot more? That makes it hard to buy a maintenance issue leading to the larger crew size.

Just my two cents.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Combat Vehicle crews
PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 10:50 am 
Offline
Lieutenant, JG
Lieutenant, JG

Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2016 8:59 pm
Posts: 145
If players believe in improved playing of Total Warfare games to save time, then Maximum Tech's additional crew extra personnel rule to negate attacker movement modifier(s) will be totally beneficial for players of Total Warfare games.
:D 8) :puter: :toast: :thewave: :tank:

_________________
Any rules ideas that I post for BT aren't official unless an up to date BT rulesbook declares otherwise. You might have to wait at least a fortnight for me to reply because I'm usually very active. I won't discuss real life politics or religion on any of these forum(s), but my favorite color is yellow like my skin color (hint).


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 

All times are UTC-04:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
American English Language Pack © Maël Soucaze