Armored Vehicle Variants

[Sgt Anjay]

I was looking through the more conventional vehicles in the game for various reasons and came to think about the fact that one of the more useful features of armored vehicles is their capacity to become armored vehicle “families”; a host of variants based upon the same basic vehicle. This feature is already in play in the two basic armored vehicles in the game, the LACV-60 and the M2200, and I feel it warrants a closer look.

The LACV-60 is listed as having command post, ambulance, riot control, and engineering variants in addition to the basic troop transport model. Game details for these variants aren’t listed, but would be useful for ground-based games, so…

The command post would have C3 capability obviously; the question is which capabilities and to what extent (i.e. bonuses). Another interesting question is whether the CP variant is meant only for conventional forces or if it’s also used for Destroid units to give them a mobile CP operating to the rear. I don’t see why it couldn’t be used that way, at least.

Other than non-lethal ammunition for any mounted weapons the vehicle seems fairly well suited already for riot control.

For the ambulance, capacity reduced to two vehicle crew, two medics with equipment and space for four litter patients or 6 ambulatory patients? That seems to be the armored ambulance standard.

For the engineering variant I'd go with a configuration like the real-life M1132 Engineer Squad Vehicle: mine plow (50 MDC?) and maybe slightly more MDC on the wheels(+5 per?), comes standard with a trailer of engineering gear, slightly lower top speed.

I'll also note here that under the Heavy Weapons section, it lists the Mk.17 Anti-Armor missile launcher and Mk.18 Anti-aircraft missile launcher. The Mk.18 specifically mentions the LACV-60 as mounting this weapon system, which creates an air-defense variant. Turret would likely reduce crew capacity, maybe to 6, though perhaps it'd be better drop it to four and stow a couple man-portable anti-air systems to supplement the vehicle turret. And if the LACV-60 can mount the Mk.18, then it can instead mount the Mk.17 to create an anti-armor variant, this one with a crew kept down to 4 to maximize ammo for the launcher.


The M2200 has four major variants listed: the basic Infantry Fighting Vehicle, Cavalry Fighting Vehicle, Engineer Support Vehicle, and Medevac Vehicle. Stats are listed for the variants, with my main point of contention the CFV.

Even there, though, it just could use expansion; “has a small unit with some extra gear” is a little underwhelming as data, though as a non-focus design it is understandable. Since this is essentially a recon variant, it should have a recon suite, not just “communication equipment”, especially since the equipment section has the Tactical Field Radio Signals Interdiction Pack for recon that isn't taking up significantly more room than any other pack a Southern Cross trooper would carry. So maybe call its suite a lighter, less robust version of the one on the Cyclops battloid?

And here I'll note the book itself calls those the “four major variants”...so how about some minor variants?

I've thought of some ideas for a couple, both for the Janissary and the LACV-60, but thought I'd throw this out there and see what others thought.

[ArmySGT.]

Book and pages cited?

[taalismn]

Excellent variants.
Indeed; the M2200 could be minor'ed by looking at all the variants for the M113 APC, and then some.
Add appllique armor, you got an upgraded AFV.
Build on a mini-missile launcher or SRM launcher, with reloads in the hull, you have a traditional anti-armor platform.
Add extra shielding, life support, and mount various sensors, and you have an NBC response craft.
Cut back the rear, tack on a heavy mortar with its baseplate lifted clear of the ground, you have a mortar support vehicle(great if your enemy's hunkered down...even if they got ground mecha, massed artillery's going to keep them occupied).
Traditional close air defense variants can be created by mounting rapid fire light cannon(energy or projectile) and aiming sensors. Maybe go the whole dual-wweapons mode and mount BOTH light cannon and 2-8 light anti-aircraft missiles.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Book and pages cited?

seconded.
What book are the mentioned vehicles in?
I was looking in my RT2 books and didn't find the LACV-60 in any of them.

[glitterboy2098]

also worth looking at the CV90 family of vehicles. and a mortar vehicles could be very nasty if they use the automatic 180mm mortars found in the TZ clusters of destroids.

[taalismn]

Book and pages cited?

seconded.
What book are the mentioned vehicles in?
I was looking in my RT2 books and didn't find the LACV-60 in any of them.

Robotech 2nd Edition: Macross Sourcebook, pgs. 117-119

[ArmySGT.]

I should think you can take anything you want and modernize it. Take any tank and say due to costs for maintenance, training and operation the model is still available now with Robotechnology super alloys giving an MDC hull. The 120mm main gun has been upgraded with these alloys to contain pressures undreamed of, this coupled with new ammuntion makes a comparable MDC armament. Items like missiles would simply have upgraded propellants and explosive mixtures so their is no reason a MDC short range missile can't be in a TOW II form factor.

Ideally, these make best use as support vehicles, the Air Defense, the commo unit, air defense radar, counter battery radar, fire direction center, fitter (repair) would be huge, armored recovery vehicle, recon vehicle, tracked 10, 20, 30 ton supply vehicle...... etc.

[ShadowLogan]

@Sgt Anjay
I would add to the list:
-M-400 Arbalist
-M-70 Kodiak

The M400's turret (and M2204 variant's raised platform) could allow it to form the basis of a Tank or Self-Propelled-Artillery platform I would think. The M-400 could also have other missile based roles (carrying SRM or Mini's) in place of the MRM/LRM turret.

The M220x series could do with a larger turret (2204 basis) that has a dedicated energy source to power beam weapons to provide additional support that the main engines and HL-80 can't do for all situations. (Or trade troop capacity to enhance the HL-80s endurance with more capacitors or auxillary/bigger powerplant). It would also open the door to heavier weapon variants mounted in that location (missiles, bigger guns, etc) while keeping the HL-80.

The Kodiak may have additional variants filling the same missions as the new Silverback and older M220x series, along with Ambulance, and other fire support type roles by replacing the MRM launcher/cargo bed/Ram Prow)with appropriate mission packages (styled after the Silverback and M220x).

Any of these mentioned so far could do with a Bridge Laying Vehicle to support them and other ground troops that can't fly (or can't leap the required distance), either as a variant of one of the above platforms or a purpose built design. A Destroid might be to wide to utilize a single bridge (requiring two platforms working together), but the smaller ASC Battloids certainly could exploit a single vehicle operating with them.

@ArmySGT.
Putting 2E References in terms of 1E for you.
LACV-60 (2E RT Macross Saga SB pg 117-8, 1E Books have it as the AAR-Recon II in Main Book pg74-5)
M220x (2E RT Masters Saga SB pg 145-8, 1E Books have it as the APT Tank Carrier in Book4 pg80 and in the Sentinels Book as the command vehicle)
M-400 (2E RT Masters Saga SB pg 148-50, 1E Books have it as the ATV Missile Launcher in Book#4 pg79-80)
M-70 Kodiak (2E RT NG SB pg54-5, unmentioned in 1E books, it was in the show as an early vehicle Lunk drives)

[Jefffar]

I have used the LACV-60 and the M2200 chassis for a few non-official variants in my games. In particular both have seen the role of armoured car/light tank, indirect fire support, tank (or rather mecha) hunter and air defense.

[sirkermittsg]

I have used the LACV-60 and the M2200 chassis for a few non-official variants in my games. In particular both have seen the role of armoured car/light tank, indirect fire support, tank (or rather mecha) hunter and air defense.

you have lots of cool things in your games my friend.

[taalismn]

And, of course, the LowRider LACV-60 with variable height hydraulics, undercarriage neon lighting, and welded chain steering wheel.

[drewkitty ~..~]

And, of course, the LowRider LACV-60 with variable height hydraulics, undercarriage neon lighting, and welded chain steering wheel.

[taalismn]

And, of course, the LowRider LACV-60 with variable height hydraulics, undercarriage neon lighting, and welded chain steering wheel.

And let us not forget the mandatory day-glo pink variant.

[Sgt Anjay]

And, of course, the LowRider LACV-60 with variable height hydraulics, undercarriage neon lighting, and welded chain steering wheel.

And let us not forget the mandatory day-glo pink variant.

Even worse is Robotech Development Group Japan's LACV-60HK Hello Kitty Special Edition armored vehicle.

[taalismn]

[
Even worse is Robotech Development Group Japan's LACV-60HK Hello Kitty Special Edition armored vehicle.

Those guys and girls come around, you just know you're ####ed.
Paint job like that sez 'we ain't afraid of nobody'.

[Sgt Anjay]

Oops, absolutely right should’ve cited the pages in the books. Thanks for chiming in with those, guys. I'll add in that the Mk.17 and Mk.18 turrets I mention are on pg. 135 of 2nd ed. Macross Saga Sourcebook.

Yes, it is entirely possible to “update” present day designs…or, actually, near-past designs would be better, Robotech’s timeline clearly diverged from the real world decades ago…and use them in the game. It isn’t my preferred modus operandi for a variety of reasons, though one of the main ones is I prefer to stick to the designs of the setting while playing in a setting that has so thoroughly divested itself of currently in-use designs that 5.56 rifles, Ma Deuce, and even fuelers, aircraft tugs, and refrigerated trucks for goodness sakes have been visibly replaced by next-gen alien tech versions. So I just use equivalent modern designs as a basis of comparison to see how the fictional ones can be used and abus—ahem, expanded and modified, but that’s my personal taste. Hence this thread.

Near if not at the top of my list for new variants for both the LACV and Janissary vehicles is a mortar carrier; mortars and infantry go together like peanut butter and jelly. The one in the TZ cluster is probably a fair place to start on Robotech mortar stats, although don’t get me started on the headscratch-inducing decision to call a forward-facing direct-fire auto-loading weapon in a vehicle mount with limited traverse a “mortar”.

I definitely think we can crib plenty of ideas from the M113 (how has a design that useful and versatile in service for that long never gotten an official name?!). In addition to such useful things as a repair and recovery vehicle, a version that amounts to a tracked truck with a cargo bed, and both missile and vulcan cannon armed anti-air variants, there's apparently one nasty variant (the M132) that had a huge flamethrower paired with a heavy machine gun as its weapon station.

I’m not familiar with the CV-90, thanks for the heads up glitterboy2098 I will definitely take a look!

And yes, new types of modular turrets is a great, simple way to generate new variants since we know both LACV-60s and M2200s can take them and adding/modifying turrets is true-to-life as far as modifications of armored vehicles.
A gun-type close air-defense turret with maximized traverse and a few light missile tubes has the added advantage that it could probably double as decent heavy fire-support/tank destroyer design for infantry.

Speaking of which, another classic way to generate a fire-support design is of course to give an APC/IFV a tank gun. For the LACV-60, this would give you something like the B1 Centauro or M1128 Mobile Gun System (among others), both of which have 105mm cannon.

A Janissary with a larger power system and capacitors topped with a heavy gun (dub it the “Mamluk”?) seems entirely doable, though at that point you've got a lot of overlap with the hovertanks.

The M-70 Kodiak, missed that one. Looking at it, it makes me think of something along the lines of the U.S. RG-33, the Russian Ural Typhoon, and the German ATF Dingo.

Jefffar! Share the love. I'd love to hear any stats/details of your variants, as well as how any of them worked out in actual play.

[taalismn]

I definitely think we can crib plenty of ideas from the M113 (how has a design that useful and versatile in service for that long never gotten an official name?!). .

The Israelis have quite a few names for their M113 variants, all in Hebrew(for instance, one variant is called the 'Cheetah'!!!!!).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variants_of_the_M113_armored_personnel_carrier

There's also the long-running controversy over calling the design the Gavin, promoted primarily by a self-styled military essayist who's been the subject of quite a lot of controversy himself over his claimed credentials and behavior. Unfortunately, it seems a number of visitors to his websites have mistakenly believed that 'Gavin' IS the unofficial name of the M113, adding to the confusion.

[glitterboy2098]

if not for the fact the IAF versions are modified, i'd adopt "Zelda" as the common name for all M113's
though if we go by what it was nicknamed first, it is the "green dragon".. after what the ARVN named theirs.

[ArmySGT.]

There's also the long-running controversy over calling the design the Gavin, promoted primarily by a self-styled military essayist who's been the subject of quite a lot of controversy himself over his claimed credentials and behavior. Unfortunately, it seems a number of visitors to his websites have mistakenly believed that 'Gavin' IS the unofficial name of the M113, adding to the confusion.

Crap! Don't lure Sparky here! That bag o' nuts.

[glitterboy2098]

well, if he shows up, he'll double the number of active members with his sockpuppets..

[ArmySGT.]

well, if he shows up, he'll double the number of active members with his sockpuppets..

CombaX--Xeform.borg (replace x1 with T, x2 with R) is ridiculous in its slavish devotion to the M113. (No official name).

Sockpuppets did make me laugh.

[taalismn]

well, if he shows up, he'll double the number of active members with his sockpuppets..

Including more female members.

What we need, then, is an equivalent thread to the IMU, for your kitbashes of common Robotech vehicles, without actually turning the vehicle into mecha.
Although, I admit that my centaur-style kludge of a civil defense battloid's upper torso, head, and arms, to a Janissary hull straddles the line.
But grafting on surplus first-generation mecha parts, or salvaged Zentraedi mecha equipment, would be perfectly legal...like mounting one of a Zentraedi Artillery Pod's missile pods directly on to an LACV-60 or M2200, or as part of a towed artillery array(usable while supplies of Zentraedi missiles last).

[ArmySGT.]

Yes, it is entirely possible to “update” present day designs…or, actually, near-past designs would be better, Robotech’s timeline clearly diverged from the real world decades ago…and use them in the game. It isn’t my preferred modus operandi for a variety of reasons, though one of the main ones is I prefer to stick to the designs of the setting while playing in a setting that has so thoroughly divested itself of currently in-use designs that 5.56 rifles, Ma Deuce, and even fuelers, aircraft tugs, and refrigerated trucks for goodness sakes have been visibly replaced by next-gen alien tech versions. So I just use equivalent modern designs as a basis of comparison to see how the fictional ones can be used and abus—ahem, expanded and modified, but that’s my personal taste. Hence this thread.

So many support models like the Czech Dana artillery system, the German Gepard Mobile AAA, and the new Russian Tunguska or the Pantsir make realistic and affordable companions to Destroid units.

The M577 (M113 variant) has been upgraded to the M1068 (M113 variant) with digital systems to handle computer networking.

Near if not at the top of my list for new variants for both the LACV and Janissary vehicles is a mortar carrier; mortars and infantry go together like peanut butter and jelly. The one in the TZ cluster is probably a fair place to start on Robotech mortar stats, although don’t get me started on the headscratch-inducing decision to call a forward-facing direct-fire auto-loading weapon in a vehicle mount with limited traverse a “mortar”.

Gun/Mortars have been around awhile. It breech loads like a cannon, then a firing pin fires it. It is shorter ranged than a cannon, but larger bore than the light chassis it is mounted on usually allows. Typically see them on the riverine warfare boats in dual .50 BMG and gun/mortar mounts.

[ArmySGT.]

well, if he shows up, he'll double the number of active members with his sockpuppets..

Including more female members.

What we need, then, is an equivalent thread to the IMU, for your kitbashes of common Robotech vehicles, without actually turning the vehicle into mecha.
Although, I admit that my centaur-style kludge of a civil defense battloid's upper torso, head, and arms, to a Janissary hull straddles the line.
But grafting on surplus first-generation mecha parts, or salvaged Zentraedi mecha equipment, would be perfectly legal...like mounting one of a Zentraedi Artillery Pod's missile pods directly on to an LACV-60 or M2200, or as part of a towed artillery array(usable while supplies of Zentraedi missiles last).

Why the necessity to kit bash? Old systems made with new materials. AAMRAM missiles with MDC capable warheads. MDC capable cannons made from alien tech alloys.

[Rabid Southern Cross Fan]

At least in the stuff I've written up, both the LACV-60 and M2200 Janissary have heavier weapons mounted on traversing turrets that mirror the real-world LAV-III and M2 Bradley armored cupola's.

[ArmySGT.]

it's also a great way for high tech bandits to surprise players in their Destroids or Veritechs.....

[ShadowLogan]

What we need, then, is an equivalent thread to the IMU, for your kitbashes of common Robotech vehicles, without actually turning the vehicle into mecha.

I don't see the need. There are more than a few IMU vehicles in that thread already IINM, and it isn't that hard (IMHO) to adapt some of the IMUs into properly designed production versions that are fielded. In many respects I find Palladium's "production" IMU examples to get away from the spirit of what the IMU comes across as (one/small#-off produced items, each with their own quirks, currently they just feel like away to provide additional diversity to the production units in 2/3 cases I'm familiar with).

A Janissary with a larger power system and capacitors topped with a heavy gun (dub it the “Mamluk”?) seems entirely doable, though at that point you've got a lot of overlap with the hovertanks.

True about the overlap with the Hovertanks, but how common are hovertank units? IINM the show only identifies 2 Units in the Monument City area by name (15th, 14th). ASC Airpower (at least by the RPG setup as opposed to dialogue cues in the show) seems to favor conventional/non-VT systems by 2029 (it is only later into the series that Veritech units become nearly exclusively used) so its possible the ground forces are modeled similarly.

The unit doesn't have to be something the UEDF uses primarily by 2029, it could be something they "export" to the "state" level allied forces (with the UEDF-ASC being at the "national" level) OR a knock-off variant produced by independent states as a more cost effective option than trying to reproduce/maintain costly/complex Veritechs or nt-Battloids.

[Sgt Anjay]

Near if not at the top of my list for new variants for both the LACV and Janissary vehicles is a mortar carrier; mortars and infantry go together like peanut butter and jelly. The one in the TZ cluster is probably a fair place to start on Robotech mortar stats, although don’t get me started on the headscratch-inducing decision to call a forward-facing direct-fire auto-loading weapon in a vehicle mount with limited traverse a “mortar”.

Gun/Mortars have been around awhile. It breech loads like a cannon, then a firing pin fires it. It is shorter ranged than a cannon, but larger bore than the light chassis it is mounted on usually allows. Typically see them on the riverine warfare boats in dual .50 BMG and gun/mortar mounts.

So it's the Navy's fault? It figures.

Why the necessity to kit bash? Old systems made with new materials. AAMRAM missiles with MDC capable warheads. MDC capable cannons made from alien tech alloys.

Well, first and foremost, I'll point out that "kitbash" is how many real-life armored vehicle variants tend to be developed. There are tons of vehicles that amount to "take tank turret off of this tank and add to that IFV chassis, take launcher from that and add to this", and so on. That's part of what got me to start this thread. It's so common and been going on for so long for some weapon systems that it's not even thought of as kitbashing anymore: how many vehicles has the Ma Deuce, or similar tried-and-true weapons, been added to after the fact over the years, for goodness sakes?!

I'll also note something that statement seems to be ignoring: in Macross Saga, the conventional designs listed ARE the "old systems" upgraded with new technology: they're of Global War vintage, vs. the new veritech and destroid systems.

Robotech Earth isn't our Earth, and to me ignoring the designs in the book and digging too deeply into our Earth's designs means ignoring the timeline diversion that had F-203 Dragon II and MiM-31 filled skies during a 1990s Global War in favor of creating suped-up 80s and earlier designs. It's the equivalent of us getting alien tech and using it to upgrade the M60 Patton instead of the M1 Abrams.

Now don't get me wrong: its entirely viable to simply take 1980s or earlier designs, give them MDC values, and use them. Realistically speaking it probably happened to one degree or another. I don't know why that should prevent us coming up with likely variants to the Global War designs of the 90s, though.

[Sgt Anjay]

At least in the stuff I've written up, both the LACV-60 and M2200 Janissary have heavier weapons mounted on traversing turrets that mirror the real-world LAV-III and M2 Bradley armored cupola's.

I'd love to see any stats on those you have laying around; as I mentioned, a LACV-60 version of something like the B1 Centauro is something I had in mind.

[Sgt Anjay]

A Janissary with a larger power system and capacitors topped with a heavy gun (dub it the “Mamluk”?) seems entirely doable, though at that point you've got a lot of overlap with the hovertanks.

True about the overlap with the Hovertanks, but how common are hovertank units? IINM the show only identifies 2 Units in the Monument City area by name (15th, 14th). ASC Airpower (at least by the RPG setup as opposed to dialogue cues in the show) seems to favor conventional/non-VT systems by 2029 (it is only later into the series that Veritech units become nearly exclusively used) so its possible the ground forces are modeled similarly.

The unit doesn't have to be something the UEDF uses primarily by 2029, it could be something they "export" to the "state" level allied forces (with the UEDF-ASC being at the "national" level) OR a knock-off variant produced by independent states as a more cost effective option than trying to reproduce/maintain costly/complex Veritechs or nt-Battloids.

Well, as to VHT unit commonality, I counter with: How many VHT squadrons did Monument City even need? If there didn't need to be a ton of them stationed there, then there wouldn't be regardless of how common the VHT was.

But yes, the SC has a stated heavy investment in the conventional designs, and I didn't mean to imply there wouldn't be a place for the "Mamluk", I just wanted to note that there would be role-overlap with the Spartas and Myrmidon. Also, a "Mamluk" as a standard export/knock-off variant is a really good point!

So then, an early/initial version of the cannon that would later be fitted to 2nd Robotech War VHTs? You could even say that its performance on the "Mamluk" variant is what led to adoption on the VHT, folding it into the existing setting very neatly.

[ArmySGT.]

Near if not at the top of my list for new variants for both the LACV and Janissary vehicles is a mortar carrier; mortars and infantry go together like peanut butter and jelly. The one in the TZ cluster is probably a fair place to start on Robotech mortar stats, although don’t get me started on the headscratch-inducing decision to call a forward-facing direct-fire auto-loading weapon in a vehicle mount with limited traverse a “mortar”.

Gun/Mortars have been around awhile. It breech loads like a cannon, then a firing pin fires it. It is shorter ranged than a cannon, but larger bore than the light chassis it is mounted on usually allows. Typically see them on the riverine warfare boats in dual .50 BMG and gun/mortar mounts.

So it's the Navy's fault? It figures.

Gives you a 81 or 120mm gun on a light mount. Fills a need for the Navy that the Army doesn't have.

Why the necessity to kit bash? Old systems made with new materials. AAMRAM missiles with MDC capable warheads. MDC capable cannons made from alien tech alloys.

Well, first and foremost, I'll point out that "kitbash" is how many real-life armored vehicle variants tend to be developed. There are tons of vehicles that amount to "take tank turret off of this tank and add to that IFV chassis, take launcher from that and add to this", and so on. That's part of what got me to start this thread. It's so common and been going on for so long for some weapon systems that it's not even thought of as kitbashing anymore: how many vehicles has the Ma Deuce, or similar tried-and-true weapons, been added to after the fact over the years, for goodness sakes?!

I'll also note something that statement seems to be ignoring: in Macross Saga, the conventional designs listed ARE the "old systems" upgraded with new technology: they're of Global War vintage, vs. the new veritech and destroid systems.

Robotech Earth isn't our Earth, and to me ignoring the designs in the book and digging too deeply into our Earth's designs means ignoring the timeline diversion that had F-203 Dragon II and MiM-31 filled skies during a 1990s Global War in favor of creating suped-up 80s and earlier designs. It's the equivalent of us getting alien tech and using it to upgrade the M60 Patton instead of the M1 Abrams.

Now don't get me wrong: its entirely viable to simply take 1980s or earlier designs, give them MDC values, and use them. Realistically speaking it probably happened to one degree or another. I don't know why that should prevent us coming up with likely variants to the Global War designs of the 90s, though.

Realizing that the M1 Abrams is a 1970s design, the M2 Bradley is a 1970s design , and the Humvee is a 1980s design. The Apache is a 1970s design. These take 10-15 years in research and development, then throughout their life span receive incremental upgrades that were to expensive when first fielded, not available when first fielded, or it was decided to go with something good enough but not the best to manufacture more hulls and field a large force, then upgrade it.

The books do field a few designs not from our earth but certainly do not have a comprehensive listing of everything that could be available. Several countries Israel and the Soviet Union are famous for as you call kitbashing anything that will roll. The M3 half track is still in use with the Israelis as mortar carriers, supply trucks, commo vehicles, Infantry support with MGs and AGLs. Centurion tanks with the turrets removed and four HMGs mounts with gunshields push a flintstones style cement wheel out from as a cheap mine roller. These sweep roads between kibbutzes for AT mines. UH-1 Iroquois are still in use by the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Navy in 2013, as is the AH-1 Aircobra by the Marine Corps.

My point being is that in some role wheeled or tracked machines are far more economical and better suited to some roles than a destroid.

Anti Aircraft...... Example.. Invid Invasion......... A Gepard crew is notified by field phone an Invid patrol of four scouts is in their area. An air warning team of ground based radar units inform the crew distance and direction. At ten kilometers the crew drives their Gepard out of a covered and concealed position (a barn, from under camo nets, a parking garage. The crew activates their own air search and the ranging and targeting radar. The model E25 is equipped with 35mm cannons using science learned from reverse engineering the autocannons of Regult battle pods. At five kilometers the Gepard engages target one with three long bursts disabling the scout causing it to crash, Target two is engaged in the same manner with similar results. The Gepard crew makes for a secondary covered position, hides from aerial observation. A Air search radar team two or five kilometers away launches maganesium or thermite flares into the sky. The two surviving Invid Scouts without a protoculture source or something angrily attacking them speed off after the flares. Maybe to be engaged by ground teams using SRMs models after the FIM-92A stinger or SA-Grail, SA-14 Gremlin.

[Sgt Anjay]

Realizing that the M1 Abrams is a 1970s design, the M2 Bradley is a 1970s design , and the Humvee is a 1980s design. The Apache is a 1970s design.

Semantics. Yes, ok, 70s designs...but all those designs were first produced and fielded in the 80s, making the first run of them 80s technology. Either way, they are of pre-Global War vintage, as opposed to the conventional designs presented in the Macross Saga sourcebook which were part of the Global War era designs.

AGAIN, I'm not saying upgraded versions of the 80s generation of technology couldn't exist; feel free to start a thread on that topic, I'd be more than willing to hash ideas back and forth. I am, however, saying that for very legitimate reasons that is not what this thread is about.

The books do field a few designs not from our earth but certainly do not have a comprehensive listing of everything that could be available.

ALL the designs in the book are not from our Earth, because the setting isn't our Earth. And because it is not, as you say, "a comprehensive listing of everything that could be available", we have a good reason to fill in the gaps with variants of vehicles we know belong in the setting. That's the point; by sticking to designs not from our Earth it makes it easy to stick to the feel of the setting. There could be a Robotech version of the SH-60 Seahawk, and I could use a SH-60 Seahawk in a game...but it's inherently more true to the setting to use the SH-62 Sea Sergeant we actually see being used in the show and that is actually in the book.

Several countries Israel and the Soviet Union are famous for as you call kitbashing anything that will roll.

Point of order; you called it kitbashing. I merely followed suit. But as I DID say, so many weapon systems have been adapted and used on multiple platforms for so long that it often isn't considered "kitbashing", "jury-rigging", or any other such. It's a legitimate way to design either a new vehicle or a variant of an existing vehicle.

For example, the M1128 Mobile Gun System is essentially a fire support/tank destroyer version of the U.S. Army's IAV Stryker, itself based on the Canadian LAV III, which is derived from the MOWAG Piranha III, and mounting a version of the M68 105mm rifled cannon used for the M60 Patton and M1 Abrams tanks; that cannon itself came from the British Royal Ordinance L7 developed for their Centurion MBTs. And to further hammer the point home, the M1A1 and beyond iterations of Abrams replaced the M60 with the M256 120mm derived from the Rheinmetall 120mm gun on the German Leopard 2 MBTs.

So, taking weapons system X from design Y and plunking it on new design/variant Z is pretty well justified, I would say.

My point being is that in some role wheeled or tracked machines are far more economical and better suited to some roles than a destroid.

You may or may not have noticed: All the vehicles we're talking about in this thread (LACV-60 and M2200 Janissary, mostly, others here and there) are wheeled or tracked. This isn't a destroid thread.

[taalismn]

Hell...a ground drone conversion of either of the two basic APCs could be used as a remote recon vehicle...easier to do than a GMP Robot and cheaper, though perhaps not as versatile(no hands, unless you want to fit it with a set of utility manipulators from the VF-1 spare parts stockpile).

[ArmySGT.]

Apparently don't need us then. Carry on.

[Sgt Anjay]

Hell...a ground drone conversion of either of the two basic APCs could be used as a remote recon vehicle...easier to do than a GMP Robot and cheaper, though perhaps not as versatile(no hands, unless you want to fit it with a set of utility manipulators from the VF-1 spare parts stockpile).

Well, the GMP autonomous robot was law-enforced/riot-control, not a frontline combat unit.

But that's a great point, UAVs get so much attention people overlook UGVs. The question is whether to base such a system on the Ghost or Shadow Fighter A.I.s, or stat it from scratch to better account for a purely ground-based, 1-mode unit.

[taalismn]

Apparently don't need us then. Carry on.

Of course we need you!
SOMEBODY's got to supervise the robot bulldozers and earthmoving gear used to help bury the SDF-1 and SDF-2!

[ArmySGT.]

Apparently don't need us then. Carry on.

Of course we need you!
SOMEBODY's got to supervise the robot bulldozers and earthmoving gear used to help bury the SDF-1 and SDF-2!

I have the skill sets to accomplish that. However, I am from this Earth, and not the one that had the Global Civil war. This prevents me from assisting.

[taalismn]

Hell...a ground drone conversion of either of the two basic APCs could be used as a remote recon vehicle...easier to do than a GMP Robot and cheaper, though perhaps not as versatile(no hands, unless you want to fit it with a set of utility manipulators from the VF-1 spare parts stockpile).

Well, the GMP autonomous robot was law-enforced/riot-control, not a frontline combat unit.

But that's a great point, UAVs get so much attention people overlook UGVs. The question is whether to base such a system on the Ghost or Shadow Fighter A.I.s, or stat it from scratch to better account for a purely ground-based, 1-mode unit.

Or existing pre-Visitor lines of development. A ground vehicle should be a lot easier to program than a flying machine, although it may be called upon to handle more complex work tasks......one thought I had was of robot salvage and earth-moving gear for burying the SDF-1/2, and assisting in securing wrecked Zentraedi ships and other hardware where Destroids aren't available, or too large to constantly be decontaminating between work shifts.

[Sgt Anjay]

True, there's probably a much larger number of different kinds of things you could put a ground-vehicle to work at than a aerial vehicle.

A lot of the things you have to worry about programming an aerial vehicle you don't need to worry about with a ground vehicle, but unfortunately I think there's just as many things you have to worry about on the ground. Is the slope too steep? Can you get out of that creek bed? Is that a tank-trap?

And if you're not fighting aliens, IFF gets exponentially more difficult for ground combat. Is that an enemy ground vehicle, a civilian vehicle, an enemy ground vehicle disguised as a civilian vehicle, a civilian vehicle disguised as an enemy ground vehicle, a herd of cows released to cover for enemy ground vehicles, an enemy ground vehicle designed to show up as a herd of cows on sensors?

[taalismn]

True, there's probably a much larger number of different kinds of things you could put a ground-vehicle to work at than a aerial vehicle.

A lot of the things you have to worry about programming an aerial vehicle you don't need to worry about with a ground vehicle, but unfortunately I think there's just as many things you have to worry about on the ground. Is the slope too steep? Can you get out of that creek bed? Is that a tank-trap?

And if you're not fighting aliens, IFF gets exponentially more difficult for ground combat. Is that an enemy ground vehicle, a civilian vehicle, an enemy ground vehicle disguised as a civilian vehicle, a civilian vehicle disguised as an enemy ground vehicle, a herd of cows released to cover for enemy ground vehicles, an enemy ground vehicle designed to show up as a herd of cows on sensors?

"Ah, sir? The new software in the BOLO Mark zero-point-zero-one? The patch that's supposed to allow it to distinguish between civilian transport and 'technicals'? It works fine, but another problem's cropped up. It now classes baby carriages as 'hostile AFVs'."

[ShadowLogan]

I just wanted to note that there would be role-overlap with the Spartas and Myrmidon. Also, a "Mamluk" as a standard export/knock-off variant is a really good point!

Something else: It may also be that while the Veritech is all environment, there are likely environments that are more maintenance heavy than others or require some specialized adaption to function adequately. This is true even in conventional vehicles, so I can't see Veritechs being any different. Since Veritechs are going to be more costly, a conventional response may be more attractive if certain "branches" have a more limited resource budget to work with than others, and the conventional platform can meet the needs of the "branches" mission (possibly with non-variable battloid/power suits supplementing them in the overall force structure) if there is overlap in requirements with branches that do use the Veritech.

So then, an early/initial version of the cannon that would later be fitted to 2nd Robotech War VHTs? You could even say that its performance on the "Mamluk" variant is what led to adoption on the VHT, folding it into the existing setting very neatly.

That's one possibility. You could also use one of the Tomahawk's PBCs mounted on the platform to result in a need to give the VHT a heavy hitting energy cannon.

If you drop the VHT's 2,500hp engine in (auxiliary or primary), you have ~73% of a Tomahawks total output right there, which should be more than enough to power a single PBC off the Tomahawk, plus the normal systems of the Janissary. And the VHTs are similar in dimensions to the M220x when in hovercraft mode, so there shouldn't be any sizing question (if one pulls a Destroid aux/main powerplant to drop in).

But that's a great point, UAVs get so much attention people overlook UGVs. The question is whether to base such a system on the Ghost or Shadow Fighter A.I.s, or stat it from scratch to better account for a purely ground-based, 1-mode unit.

According to the RPG though AI use lost favor after the 1st RW, which lead to the cancellation of an Alpha Drone project (the UEEF didn't revive the idea until the Shadow Drone, and there is no real way to know how old the Golem is IIRC). It might be easier to develop remote operation and secure data links for them than develop an AI for the ground platform given the loss of favor for the things. It would probably be cheaper and easier to develop, plus the data-link technology could find its way into other systems.

Realizing that the M1 Abrams is a 1970s design, the M2 Bradley is a 1970s design , and the Humvee is a 1980s design. The Apache is a 1970s design. These take 10-15 years in research and development, then throughout their life span receive incremental upgrades that were to expensive when first fielded, not available when first fielded, or it was decided to go with something good enough but not the best to manufacture more hulls and field a large force, then upgrade it.

R&D though can be shortened during war time.

Those contemporary designs may be rare by the 2000s (or post R.o.D) due to the 10year Global War that was going on during the 90s in the Robotech setting (1E or 2E RPG still has a 10year Gloval War happen before the SDF-1 arrives) due to attrition. This would have lead to the development of the more common conventional platforms still seen in service during the 2000s in Robotech (and which the 2E RPG states are Global War designs).

one thought I had was of robot salvage and earth-moving gear for burying the SDF-1/2

Apparently the SDF-1 was buried via orbital bombardment ("From the Stars" Comic mini-series/graphic novel) by surviving Zentraedi ship(s).

[Rabid Southern Cross Fan]

I'd love to see any stats on those you have laying around; as I mentioned, a LACV-60 version of something like the B1 Centauro is something I had in mind.

Heh, I'll try and see if I have anything other than fluff text at the moment. I think I have game stats, but they're D6-based (I would PM ya if I have them, but I think they're just fluff text).

[Jefffar]

If you want stats, something I might suggest is looking at existing equivalents in the books. For example, just looking at the Macross Book:

Tomahawk/Spartan:
- Stats for 25mm Auto-Cannons, a common main armament for IFVs and SPAAG systems
- Stats for 180mm Mortar, easily adaptable to a self-propelled mortar surrogate Probably needs a lsight tone-down as most such weapons are 120mm these days.

Defender
- Stats for a 78mm cannon. A number of light tanks use high velocity 75 or 76mm cannons comparable to this gun, though they would be single barreled and probably have a lower rate of fire. Also, some SPAAG systems use a single 76mm gun.

Valkyrie:
- Stats for a 55mm cannon - cannons in the 40 t0 60mm size range have been used on or proposed for the armament of Infantry Fighting Vehicles (in single barrel configuration) and SPAAGs (in multi barrel configuration).

Various Aircraft:
- Lots of 20 to 30mm cannons. Single barreled (low rate of fire) versions would be good for the main gun of an IFV or recon vehicle. Multi-barreled versions would work as good SPAAGs.

Infantry Weapons:
-Machine-guns, Automatic Grenade Launchers, Anti-Tank Missile Launchers and Surface to Air Missile Launchers all suitable for use on armored vehicles as either primary or ancillary armaments.

Human Spacecraft:
- 20 and 40mm anti-aircraft lasers that could be mounted on an armored vehicle with the right power supply.

That's just the short list form one book. The other books have stats for other suitable weapons to use as surrogates. For example a lot of modern light tanks use a reduced-recoil 105mm gun system, similar to the reduced recoil 105mm used by the Spartas. It doesn't take a lot to work these things out, pick a modern design for inspiration, use similar weapons from the existing books as a benchmark (maybe a slight adjustment here and there) and you're good to go.

[taalismn]

Hell...you could probably revive the British Merlin smart mortar project for target-seeking mortar rounds similar to the american Copperhead laser-guided artillery projectile. That would give those 81mm mortars some extra accuracy.

Wanna make a neat tank/mecha destroyer from the Jannisary? Remove the troop complement, cut the hull down and angle the armor for maximum armor defelction. Mount an external auto-loading gunmount atop the lower profile hull...a similar arrangement was proposed as a replacement for the Swedish 'S'-Tank.

[Jefffar]

The Poles just presented this version of the CV-90 http://www.janes.com/article/26624/mspo ... e-unveiled

105 or 120mm cannon, room for 4 dismounts or extra ammunition.

[taalismn]

The Poles just presented this version of the CV-90 http://www.janes.com/article/26624/mspo ... e-unveiled

105 or 120mm cannon, room for 4 dismounts or extra ammunition.

Gotta see if GB2098 knows about that....it would be a nice addition to his Baltic States' stables...

[glitterboy2098]

hadn't known about it. but to be honest, it looks like a reworking of the CV90120 in service with the swedes so not terribly surprised. though the fact it is the Pole's that did it.. they don't use CV90's, so obviously there was plenty of deals being made with BAE-Hagglunds

and sadly it dates from well after the cutoff point (late 90's) i use for my EBSIS..

[ShadowLogan]

Hell...a ground drone conversion of either of the two basic APCs could be used as a remote recon vehicle...easier to do than a GMP Robot and cheaper, though perhaps not as versatile(no hands, unless you want to fit it with a set of utility manipulators from the VF-1 spare parts stockpile).

I'm not sure how canon this option is for the 2E RPG since the units have been updated, but one could adapt the 1E TCH-4 or ML-3 from Sentinels into this role you are suggesting as both have manipulator arms. The TCH-4 is closer to easy adaption I think, but it's size may make it a poor selection for a recon vehicle (19ft tall x 44ft long x 16ft wide, plus the reach of the arms), and the ML-3 is going to need massive work on top of the remote conversion unless it is now viewed as a semi-"disposable" ROV or as a 1st gen proof of concept that was implemented while the 2nd gen design was coming about.

Alternatively one could sacrifice the heavy weapons mount (both LAC-60 and M220x have them) station for a re-purposed mecha arm. A third arm segment (essentially giving it a 2nd elbow) could also be used to expand the reach. Granted this is limits one to one set of hands, but that may be all that is necessary.

[taalismn]

hadn't known about it. but to be honest, it looks like a reworking of the CV90120 in service with the swedes so not terribly surprised. though the fact it is the Pole's that did it.. they don't use CV90's, so obviously there was plenty of deals being made with BAE-Hagglunds

and sadly it dates from well after the cutoff point (late 90's) i use for my EBSIS..

Dang....well, that leaves it available for Rifts. Or the Greater Polish Interdimensional Empire.

[glitterboy2098]

actually going by the description, it is only a few features short of being something i wrote for Rifts:Scandinavia.. not sure if i should be happy i predicted the future, or annoyed my stuff won't seem as futuristic. might have to dig out some of my rejected ideas and expand the options.

the Poles did do work on a CV90 like vehicle series of their own in the 90's, named "ANDERS".. that one i do have plans to add to my EBSIS, as a Southern Cross era vehicle. the ANDERS never got interest at the time.. they chose to liscense the KTO Rosomak (an LAV-3/stryker type vehicle) instead.