Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	"Well for starts you have the fraggin' thing in backwards."
Subject:	LAV's...
Date:	Tue, 9 Nov 1993 16:34:23 -0400

Message no. 1 I am wondering about something that should be a curiosity of all you 'heavy
metal' fans out there: why has fasa not published any more LAV's than just the
Banshee? I would assume there are at least 3-4 other companies that would make
them. Input on this please.
-Head Case

From:	"Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@*******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject:	Re: LAV's...
Date:	Tue, 9 Nov 1993 16:00:18 -0600

Message no. 2 On Tue, 9 Nov 1993, Well for starts you have the fraggin' thing in backwards. wrote:

> I am wondering about something that should be a curiosity of all you 'heavy
> metal' fans out there: why has fasa not published any more LAV's than just the
> Banshee? I would assume there are at least 3-4 other companies that would make
> them. Input on this please.

Because FASA doesn't care about riggers and cars.

FASA only loves magic tossers and elves.

THe RBB is one of the worst source books FASA has produced for SR, IMHO.

____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden@*******.mankato.msus.edu
\ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=-
\/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> Veteran of the Bermuda Triangle
\/ Finger for PGP 2.3a Public Key <=> Expeditionary Force -- 1993-1951
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 1.0.1) GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++
n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)

From:	The Deb Decker <RJR96326@****.UTULSA.EDU>
Subject:	Re: LAV's...
Date:	Tue, 9 Nov 1993 17:49:05 GMT

Message no. 3 Didn't you already ask about this? Coming soon, the Ford Hunter Vertol,
as an APC or cargo transport.

J Roberson

From:	Chris Siebenmann <cks@********.UTCS.TORONTO.EDU>
Subject:	Re: LAV's...
Date:	Sat, 13 Nov 1993 00:45:23 -0500

Message no. 4 | why has fasa not published any more LAV's than just the Banshee?

Well, really, how many tanks does a Shadowrun campaign really need?
Especially statted out ones?

- cks

From:	"Well for starts you have the fraggin' thing in backwards."
Subject:	Re: LAV's
Date:	Sat, 13 Nov 1993 13:38:18 -0400

Message no. 5 >| why has fasa not published any more LAV's than just the Banshee?
>
> Well, really, how many tanks does a Shadowrun campaign really need?
>Especially statted out ones?
>
> - cks

Well got two points I want aired then:

1) Smugglers. they don't seem to ALL be running banshee's.
2) Desert Wars. Seems that multiple corps would not want to have the same gear
as the opposition.

-Head Case

From:	The Deb Decker <RJR96326@****.UTULSA.EDU>
Subject:	Re: LAV's
Date:	Sat, 13 Nov 1993 12:53:40 GMT

Message no. 6 1) Smugglers. they don't seem to ALL be running banshee's.
>2) Desert Wars. Seems that multiple corps would not want to have the same gear
> as the opposition.

Are the PCs going to be involved in Desert Wars? Even if they are, will they
be taking on a tank? If the answer is no to either question, then you don't
need stats.

The only reason I can see for stats on different tanks is if the characters
actually use them or encounter them, like in a smugglers campaign. Even then,
you can get by, using the Banshee as a baseline and adjusting the stats to
surprise your players.

J Roberson

From:	steven mancini <mancinis@******.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
Subject:	Re: LAV's
Date:	Sat, 13 Nov 1993 17:07:08 EST

Message no. 7 Actually I was watching one of the Airplane shows that
the Discovery channel airs and they had footage of a
pseudo LAV that is currently working.

It is a 1 man, "open" vehicle called a Chariot. It is a
thrust vehicle that looks like a garbage can on a jet engine
or something.

The narrator said it is fully functional but that its drawback
is a 30 minute flight time.

The applications of such a vehicle to the shadowrunner
community boggle the mind.

Da Minotaur

But then again who needs a banshee, I will just build an ally in the
form and composition (metal) of a banshee.... Lotsa armour, real
fast, and it is magically resistant. Who needs a panther cannon- mine
shoots Wrecker! :)

From:	The Deb Decker <RJR96326@****.UTULSA.EDU>
Subject:	Re: LAV's
Date:	Sun, 14 Nov 1993 17:57:15 GMT

Message no. 8 Yes, a one man open vehicle that can fly for 30 minutes.

The Vertols I made in GURPS can't fly at top speed more than about
2 hours. I think that works out to a 700 mile range before refueling.

ANother thing: Vertols require massive thrust, usually limiting them to
jet fuel. If your cyber world (Srun, CP 2020, whatever) postulates a drying
up of oil-based fuels, you'll need an alternative source of energy. I figure
at the least they'll come up with some synthetic fuel, and charge an arm &
a leg for it.

Comments?

J Roberson

From:	Mike Alex <mra0118@******.SDSMT.EDU>
Subject:	Re: LAV's
Date:	Thu, 20 Mar 1997 21:39:02 -0700

Message no. 9 > >
> >I'm Andrew Timar-Geng from Hungary. I play whit a rigger, his name is
> >Amper.
> >And 1 have a question: how high can a LAV fly?
> >
>
> Safe operational height and speed would probably be governed by the
> vehicles' payload. But I would suggest a minimum of 50m, it allows a
> marginal area for error.

Hmm, I could be wrong, but I believe it mentions that the Banshee
LAV (the airborne tank) relies on ground effect to stay aloft (ground
effect being the idea that the vehicle is pushing directly against the
ground, not just nearby air). I also read in an article on aerodynamics
that ground effect is limited to an altitude approximately equal to the
wingspan of the craft. This means, imho, that the max crusing altitude of
a Banshee would be about 6 meters with the possibility to 'jump' to 10-15
meters for short periods of time, placing the vechile more along the lines
of a fast, heavily armored hovercraft.

Mike Alex, mra0118@******.sdsmt.edu
"Resistance is futile, (if < 1 ohm)."

From:	David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject:	Re: LAV's
Date:	Fri, 21 Mar 1997 08:03:11 -0700

Message no. 10 Mike Alex wrote:
|
| Hmm, I could be wrong, but I believe it mentions that the Banshee
| LAV (the airborne tank) relies on ground effect to stay aloft (ground
| effect being the idea that the vehicle is pushing directly against the
| ground, not just nearby air).

It does.

| I also read in an article on aerodynamics
| that ground effect is limited to an altitude approximately equal to the
| wingspan of the craft.

Actually, it's equal to half the wingspan. And it also drops your stall
speed by about 20%. A stall speed (no longer flying) of 80kph would drop
to 64kph (which is about average for a 2-4 seat single engine plane).

| This means, imho, that the max crusing altitude of
| a Banshee would be about 6 meters with the possibility to 'jump' to 10-15
| meters for short periods of time, placing the vechile more along the lines
| of a fast, heavily armored hovercraft.

Yep, that was my impression too. Until, I realized that a Banshee's
small size, plus its weight (probably above 10 tons) put it's stall
speed in the 150-200kph range, or greater (I'm not an aerospace
physicist, but I do have experience flying). And, that small size also
drops it's cruising height (probably 2-3 meters). And, wing in ground
affect only works well over flat, level surfaces.

So, I think the Banshee has some sort of extendable wing (extension, fold
out, swing, etc) that it uses to get to it's destination, using WIG when it
can to conserve fuel, otherwise flying outright. Then when it's in the
thick of it it relies on thrusters for pure VTOL flight. And it's probably
got some sort of high-tech thrusters to get the job done (fuel efficient
and effective).

Just my two cents.

-David
--
/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~

From:	David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject:	Re: LAV's
Date:	Fri, 21 Mar 1997 15:30:22 -0700

Message no. 11 Paul J. Adam wrote:
|
| Not quite: LAVs are limited to low level by aerodynamics, they need
| ground effect to boost their lift.

Doh! Disregard all of the earlier crap I posted about LAVs being to
small and heavy to use ground effect. For some dumb reason I thought
it was their only means of lift. I wasn't think of it in terms of
supplementing lift from jet thrusters.

| You can 'hop' over obstacles by
| pulling the nose up and briefly flying out of ground effect, and boost
| that by using some extra thrust (afterburners, maybe?) to extend it: but
| you're going to come back down.

Yup. If the LAV has enough thrust to do a vertical lift off, it would have
enough to "jump".

| No way you could make several thousand, carrying the sort of armour and
| weapons that a Banshee packs. If that were the case, why would you need
| fixed wing aircraft?

Yup. Well, it could, but at a horrendous cost in fuel.

| >They would
| >logically have pressurised cabins, and independant oxygen supplies for
| >the occupants. So, the skies the limit really <grin>.
|
| Disagree, but then I tried building a Banshee using Fire, Fusion and
| Steel :)

Well, they would have pressurized cabins and an independant environment
to counter bio and chem warfare. But not for high altitude...

-David
--
/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~

From:	Midn Daniel O Fredrikson <m992148@****.NAVY.MIL>
Subject:	Re: LAV's
Date:	Fri, 21 Mar 1997 17:48:56 -0500

Message no. 12 >
> Well, they would have pressurized cabins and an independant environment
> to counter bio and chem warfare. But not for high altitude...
>
Yes!! That is totally true, hadn't thought of that...

By the way, has anyone else noticed how incredably weak the toxins and
diseases seem.. A single drop of sarin can kill ya (if your anti-toxin
decides not to work) Of course, it makes it more likely that us
shadowrunners will actually survive a while...

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: LAV's
Date:	Sat, 22 Mar 1997 11:35:10 +0100

Message no. 13 David Buehrer said on 15:30/21 Mar 97...

> Well, they would have pressurized cabins and an independant environment
> to counter bio and chem warfare. But not for high altitude...

Pressurized NBC systems work differently than pressurized cabins in
airliners, AFAIK. An NBC system pumps air into the vehicle, though a
filter, and thereby maintains a slightly higher pressure inside than
outside in order to keep contaminated stuff outside. I don't think
aircraft use the external air at their cruising altitudes to pressurize
the cabin.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Lack of inspiration has prevented a witty quote from being placed here.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

From:	Michael Orion Jackson <orion@****.CC.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject:	LAVs
Date:	Sat, 22 Mar 1997 12:49:03 -0600

Message no. 14 I always got the impression from SR (RBB, the illio. in the manual) that
the Banshee (and, by extension, other LAVs) was a vectored thrust vehicle.
Sort of like a Harrier but w/out wings (perhaps a better comparison would
be a Soviet/CIS monster copter (Hind, whatever the current one is) with a
VT propulsion system instead of rotors). Or hey, a BMP-3 with a VT system
(that's the closest I an think of, as the BMP-3 is really a small tank
with an inantry squad). In any case, I'm assuming that the Banshee's
flight profile would enable operations from 0m (minimal thrust on ground
wheels to increase signature at the expense of speed) to the 5km area (I'm
not sure what tthe top operational ceiling for a Harrier is, but 5,000
meters sounds good for a Banshee, because it would probably be lower than
a Harrier's due to increased weight and such). As far as the LAVs being
limited to ground effect range because they need to use GE for lift, I'm
not so sure about that. If the engine is as powerful as
described/implied, I think the LAVs are capable of flight (please don't
give me the old chestnut about an engine needing something to push against
to generate propulsive force (An american admiral said in _1949_ that
"rockets will never work in space, they need somehing to push against",
thus lending credence to the dictum that rank is inversely proportional to
intelligence)). Anyhow, I like the AV concept in cyberpunk 2.0.2.0.
(widspread usage of lightweigt aerodynes, which appear to be identical in
concept to SR's LAVs). If I recall correctly, somewhere in the cyberpunk
material, AVs are described as being chassis similar to a van or minibus
but with a derivative of the Pegasus engine mounted....

All that aside, flying tanks are just cool. :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Orion Jackson~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~TAMS Class of 1996/UT Class of 199?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~2112 Guadalupe, Rm. 502; Austin, Tx 78705 (The Goodall-Wooten)~~~~~~~
"Goddamn creatures of the night, they never learn." ~Gideon, _The Crow_
"Happiness is but a temporary chemical imbalance of the true baseline state
of our minds."~Lusiphur, quote ill-rembered and butchered by M. O. Jackson

From:	"Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: LAV's
Date:	Sat, 22 Mar 1997 15:56:50 +0000

Message no. 15 In message <199703221033.LAA18718@**********.xs4all.nl>, Gurth
<gurth@******.NL> writes
>Pressurized NBC systems work differently than pressurized cabins in
>airliners, AFAIK. An NBC system pumps air into the vehicle, though a
>filter, and thereby maintains a slightly higher pressure inside than
>outside in order to keep contaminated stuff outside. I don't think
>aircraft use the external air at their cruising altitudes to pressurize
>the cabin.

I seem to recall they use bleed air from the engine compressor stages,
so it is "outside" air.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

From:	Midn Daniel O Fredrikson <m992148@****.NAVY.MIL>
Subject:	Re: LAVs
Date:	Sat, 22 Mar 1997 20:08:34 -0500

Message no. 16 > I always got the impression from SR (RBB, the illio. in the manual) that
> the Banshee (and, by extension, other LAVs) was a vectored thrust vehicle.
> Sort of like a Harrier but w/out wings (perhaps a better comparison would
> be a Soviet/CIS monster copter (Hind, whatever the current one is) with a
> VT propulsion system instead of rotors). Or hey, a BMP-3 with a VT system
> (that's the closest I an think of, as the BMP-3 is really a small tank
> with an inantry squad). In any case, I'm assuming that the Banshee's
> flight profile would enable operations from 0m (minimal thrust on ground
> wheels to increase signature at the expense of speed) to the 5km area (I'm
> not sure what tthe top operational ceiling for a Harrier is, but 5,000
> meters sounds good for a Banshee, because it would probably be lower than
> a Harrier's due to increased weight and such).

The major difference between the LAV and the harrier, is the harrier
spends as little time as possible in the hover mode. It is extremely
costly fuel wise. That is why the harrier has wings. Lift increases fuel
efficiency remarkably. The harrier tries to avoid taking off straight up
because it cuts their payload by 2/3's. That is why the harrier is more
often used in STO mode than VTO. Much better performance.

As far as the LAVs being
> limited to ground effect range because they need to use GE for lift, I'm
> not so sure about that. If the engine is as powerful as
> described/implied, I think the LAVs are capable of flight (please don't
> give me the old chestnut about an engine needing something to push against
> to generate propulsive force (An american admiral said in _1949_ that
> "rockets will never work in space, they need somehing to push against",
> thus lending credence to the dictum that rank is inversely proportional to
> intelligence)).

I'm not sure why you are bringing the argument of a engine needing
something to push against. No one has mentioned that to my knowledge.
The problem is fuel efficiency. Sure you could cut the wings of a harrier
and fly it like that, but it probably wouldn't be able to fly more than a
couple of miles before it ran out of gas. Choppers manage by keep
constant vertical hover because they are moving a huge amount of air. As
the volume of air you move decreases, the ratio of kinetic energy to
momentum increases, so efficiency decreases. It is one of the reasons
that duct fans have been tossed around for an idea. They move a much
greater volume of air at a slower speed then do the thrust vectoring
nossles. Slower speed, less energy wasted heating the air..

Anyhow, I like the AV concept in cyberpunk 2.0.2.0.
> (widspread usage of lightweigt aerodynes, which appear to be identical in
> concept to SR's LAVs). If I recall correctly, somewhere in the cyberpunk
> material, AVs are described as being chassis similar to a van or minibus
> but with a derivative of the Pegasus engine mounted....

The key word there is light weight... I don't think any of us would say
that a tank is light. With low weight, there are all sorts of arinautical
tricks you could use. I think I read somewhere about some inventor
working on a VSTOL family car. It used a lifting body design and had 5
ducted fans for lift. It was also made almost entirely out of
composites..

>
> All that aside, flying tanks are just cool. :)

You got me there. Flying tanks are cool. I think hovering tanks are
smarter though. You can have the speed without worring about having to be
able to manuever in three dimensions like a jet. Once a tank ventures
into the wild blue yonder, all of its tank design become somewhat useless.
Why have a main turret gun, when some stealth fighter can lock on to you
for 90 miles out and blow you out of the sky. I just dont see the purpose
of a tank that could go 5k up. you would be better suited to have the gun
on the bottem...:)

From:	Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU>
Subject:	Re: LAV's
Date:	Sun, 23 Mar 1997 12:10:48 -0500

Message no. 17 The one time I've had LAV's put in an appearance in my campaign was when I
decided to rip off a techno-thriller (_Fire Arrow_) for a plot. BAsically,
the UCAS Army wanted to take control of an airbase on the coast of Libia
for long enough to evacuate people from it. Anyway, they HALO'd a SEAL team
into a large resevoir/lake on the base. The SEALs took control of the
hostages that this op was supposed to rescue. The problem was that the base
was surrounded by armor protecting the hostage takers, so the UCAS couldn't
just haul up in their choppers and evacuate everyone. So they sent in
airborne troops (carrier air suppressed AAA and SAM in the area.)

In the novel, the troops brough armored support with them by LAPESing (Low
altitute parachute extraction) Sheridans from C-130s as the foot troops
jumped (from different planes.) Well, the 205X equivalent to the Sheridan
might conceivably be the Banshee. So the C-60 Titans went over at
(relatively) low altitute, kicking Banshees out the rear doors, letting
them air-start and ride their engines down, Engaging any visible enemy
tanks with fire form above, where (typical) tank armor is weak.

So, to me, the Banshee (and equivalent tanks such as the one presented in
the Aztlan sourcebook) fill the role of light tanks, high-speed cavalry,
and heavily-armored helicopters. But their intended role was as air-mobile
armor. And in the kind of low-intensity warfare that appears to predominate
in the 2050's, the rapid mobility and deployment capabilities of the LAV
seem to be desirable.

The fact that civilian owners do wierd shit with them is a side note. And
an LAV makes a pretty decent summgling vehicle if you don't mind letting
people know where you are due to an accidental contact. It can outrun most
anything it can't shoot up, and can shoot up anything that can keep up with
it. As for the RBB weapon load-out, consider that to be the smuggler's
variant. After all, missles are expensive, auto-cannon ammo is cheap(er.)

As for the Azzies, consider what they do with them. They use them to patrol
the borders (where the primary opposition is smugglers in similar
vehicles.) LAV's can quickly deploy from a central base, then loiter in the
area, unlike fighters. And the azzie LAV is fast enough to pace a Banshee,
armored enough not to care about light autocannon fire, and carries a big
enough weapon to hurt a smuggler's LAV. (They carry a light railgun.)

They also use them in a high-tech, low-intensity conflict. In the Yucutan,
they can (apparently) clear the tree-tops, and are therefore not as limited
to the roads as conventional armor. They are fast enough to be whisled up
as support by troops ambushed by rebels.

As for the ones owned by the UCAS, my guess it that the ones not owned by
the UCASMC or the airborne forces (both of whom use them where they can't
bring conventional armor) have a mostly missle-based weapons array, with a
pretty decent forward-observer sensor/comm fit.

These LAVs take the cavalry/air-cavalry role in combat. They are fast
enough to avoid a tank's main gun, armored enough to ignore a
cuploa-mounted HMG. They can evade wire-guided missles with a little luck,
fly low-enough that a heat-seeking SAM can't gut them, and can take a
radar-guided SAM on the armor. Since they can gain some altitude, they can
shoot an autocannon from high enough to try and penentrate a conventional
tank's roof armor. Even if they can't, conventional tanks can lose a tread
to autocannon fire, and are then vulnerable to artillery. LAVs are
harassers, forcing the opposition to devote resources to cover flanks that
wound not be vulnerable to conventional tanks.

That's my rationale for LAVs in 2050

***********
Quicksilver

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer