Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Theemile and 60 guests

Battle armor and misc stuff about land forces

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Battle armor and misc stuff about land forces
Post by Draken   » Mon Dec 01, 2014 7:19 pm

Draken
Commander

Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 12:58 pm

Battle armor is described in "On Basilisk Station" as something similar to current times MBT, but we a lot of room for expansions and modifications. So why they created uncovered armor which isn't that great and can't be that heavily armored. Also why they still using tanks? It's somewhere in House of Steel that Manticore and Grayson armies are using tanks. It will be much cheaper to just use Marines in battle armors rather than tanks. And battle armor could be easily changed from reckon role for heavy support or assault version of it and doing that with tank would be rather problematic.
Typical Marine armor is designed to protect him against pulse darts and flechette ammunition?
What we know about Army armor, are they deploying only in battle armors?
Top
Re: Battle armor and misc stuff about land forces
Post by Rob the Fiend   » Mon Dec 01, 2014 8:03 pm

Rob the Fiend
Lieutenant (Junior Grade)

Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 7:46 pm

Even if the Battle armor is as strong as a MBT of today, they are a LOT lighter.
So with a large enough explosion, even armored troops will be tossed around like ragdolls.

Less likely with a 100- 200 ton MBT. Also a tank can mount much larger guns and carry more power packs, for longer deployments.
Top
Re: Battle armor and misc stuff about land forces
Post by saber964   » Mon Dec 01, 2014 8:18 pm

saber964
Admiral

Posts: 2423
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:41 pm
Location: Spokane WA USA

There are also several types of 'Battle' armor. Read through CoG on the battle of Mendle they used Utilitiy armor and Battle armor. Utility armor has more endurance (IIRC 3-5x) than Battle armor but less firepower. Also Battle Armor has different levels IIRC Scout Armor built for speed with the firepower of roughly a standard infantryman. Then you have 'standard' battle armor, and finally 'Assult' Battle armor which has the least endurence but has the most armor and firepower. The Assult armor will probably be packing weapons with the word heavy as a prefix e.g Heavy Tri-barrel or Heavy Plasma Gun.
Top
Re: Battle armor and misc stuff about land forces
Post by Duckk   » Mon Dec 01, 2014 9:00 pm

Duckk
Site Admin

Posts: 4200
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:29 pm

1) Equipping an entire army with battle armor would be prohibitively expensive. Even the Marines don't have that kind of loadout - it's something like one platoon per company.

2) While battle armor does allow an infantryman to carry a lot of protection and firepower equivalent to today's MBT, by the same token a Honorverse vehicle is far more deadly. You can see this in SftS. Those relatively light infantry fighting vehicles still have a staggering amount of firepower from our perspective, and heavy armor is pretty much immune to plasma weapons which would torch battle armor. I believe David once compared a heavy Honorverse tank to an early Bolo, if that helps get the point across.

3) Battle armor is low endurance, while vehicles are much more self sufficient and capable of operating longer.

4) Vehicles (specifically counter grav ones) are far more mobile than battle armor, as the jump gear on battle armor is strictly limited in endurance.
-------------------------
Shields at 50%, taunting at 100%! - Tom Pope
Top
Re: Battle armor and misc stuff about land forces
Post by Draken   » Tue Dec 02, 2014 3:37 am

Draken
Commander

Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 12:58 pm

Tanks are powerful but one aimed shot from AT launcher and it's dead, with battle armor shooting it is somewhat more complicated, they're much smaller and harder to hit.
So why Marines have assault battalions fully equipped with battle armors?
Top
Re: Battle armor and misc stuff about land forces
Post by kzt   » Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:04 am

kzt
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 11360
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:18 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Draken wrote:Tanks are powerful but one aimed shot from AT launcher and it's dead, with battle armor shooting it is somewhat more complicated, they're much smaller and harder to hit.
So why Marines have assault battalions fully equipped with battle armors?

You really don't have to be terribly accurate with tank class plasma guns. They are kiloton range explosions. Close counts, battle armor may be very tough, but if I turn the occupant to strawberry jam or fry every piece of electronic it has I really don't care if the armor is still intact.

And it is very difficult to engage a honorverse tank successfully. They have absurdly good sensors and computers, so powered armor is almost always going to get spotted quite a ways out. They can shoot down impeller driven weapons, divert plasma bolts with absurdly powerful magnetic fields and otherwise take quite a lot of killing.
Top
Re: Battle armor and misc stuff about land forces
Post by Draken   » Tue Dec 02, 2014 7:40 am

Draken
Commander

Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 12:58 pm

Is there any specification of Honorverse MBT?
So Honorverse MBT is impossible to destroy and very deadly?
Why they didn't create any tanks similar to Dreadnought from Warhammer 40000?
Shouldn't be smaller battle armor harder to destroy than big and nice tank?
Top
Re: Battle armor and misc stuff about land forces
Post by Duckk   » Tue Dec 02, 2014 8:21 am

Duckk
Site Admin

Posts: 4200
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:29 pm

Is there any specification of Honorverse MBT?


Not that you can see.

So Honorverse MBT is impossible to destroy and very deadly?


It's all about relative toughness. I don't expect to take out an Abrams tank with a .50 cal machine gun, but I can take down an infantryman. Similarly, I don't expect to take down an Honorverse tank with a plasma rifle, but I can easily fry a battle armored trooper.

Why they didn't create any tanks similar to Dreadnought from Warhammer 40000?


Because as awesome as bipedal armored monsters are in fiction, it's an incredibly silly concept in the real world.

Shouldn't be smaller battle armor harder to destroy than big and nice tank?


Again, relative toughness. A vehicle can always carry more armor than an infantryman, and it can carry systems to mitigate threats (like, say, point defense against missiles). And no battle armor can scoot around at hundreds of miles per hour to get out of an engagement zone if it has to.

You seem to be under the impression that battle armor is nigh invincible. It's not. We've seen tons of things which can defeat body armor. Plasma rifles, plasma grenades, tribarrels, missiles, mines, and who knows what else.
-------------------------
Shields at 50%, taunting at 100%! - Tom Pope
Top
Re: Battle armor and misc stuff about land forces
Post by Armed Neo-Bob   » Tue Dec 02, 2014 4:20 pm

Armed Neo-Bob
Captain of the List

Posts: 532
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:11 pm

Duckk wrote:
Is there any specification of Honorverse MBT?


Not that you can see.

So Honorverse MBT is impossible to destroy and very deadly?


It's all about relative toughness. I don't expect to take out an Abrams tank with a .50 cal machine gun, but I can take down an infantryman. Similarly, I don't expect to take down an Honorverse tank with a plasma rifle, but I can easily fry a battle armored trooper.

SNIP

Just so you all know--shooting an infantryman with a .50 cal is a violation of the laws of war. It is supposed to be used only on non-living things like vehicles. Not that it doesn't happen anyway, but the Good Guys are supposed to avoid it.


At least, that was what they told us on the firing ranges at Ft Benning when I did the 11C MOS.

Rob
Top
Re: Battle armor and misc stuff about land forces
Post by n7axw   » Tue Dec 02, 2014 4:26 pm

n7axw
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5997
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:54 pm
Location: Viborg, SD

Armed Neo-Bob wrote:
Just so you all know--shooting an infantryman with a .50 cal is a violation of the laws of war. It is supposed to be used only on non-living things like vehicles. Not that it doesn't happen anyway, but the Good Guys are supposed to avoid it.

At least, that was what they told us on the firing ranges at Ft Benning when I did the 11C MOS.

Rob


???And just what is it that the .50 cal is good for shooting??? An honest question by the way... I have no background to answer it so I am not being intentionally sarcastic... :?

Don
When any group seeks political power in God's name, both religion and politics are instantly corrupted.
Top

Return to Honorverse