Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	Jeffrey Mach <mach@****.CALTECH.EDU>
Subject:	Toys
Date:	Tue, 11 Feb 1997 09:03:47 -0800

Message no. 1 *****TO: Stephanie
>>>>>[Hmmmm...so paint me surprised, I didn't quite expect a tank driver
in here, but hey, it's a small world. I was just trying to point out some
less than normally useful skills a Johnson might find himself with if he
isn't too careful in baiting his hook. Far be it from me to cast
aspersions on someone who knows how to fire a 120mm gun.

And no, I can't drive a tank. And no, I can't summon even the spirit of a
dead tuna. I just know computers and have a mouth occasionally bigger
than my foot.

On the other hand, have you ever tried a hovertank? I mean no problems
with broken ground, higher top speed, smoother weapon stabilization.
Okay, so you have to take slightly higher fuel costs, a bit more
maintenance, and in some cases a minor reduction in armor to boost
maneuverability. But hey, you can't hit what you can't hit.

Now, I'm not saying I'm somebody who could set you, or more specifically
your favorite procurement officer with a Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
Tsunami MBHT for an evaluation run, but I might be able to do something
(friend of a friend of a friend) that would end you up with something more
reasonable (and reliable).]<<<<<
-- Vernier <12:10:12/02-11-58>

From:	"Paul J. Adam" <shadowtk@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: Toys
Date:	Wed, 12 Feb 1997 01:26:30 +0000

Message no. 2 *****PRIVATE: Vernier
>>>>>[I'm not actually a tank _driver_, I command Uncle Sasha's heavy
armoured platoon, but I _am_ a qualified driver so I suppose that
counts. And the gun isn't 120mm, it's a 105mm rifled with a coaxial 30mm
cannon. I _know_ that isn't state of the art, but it's also effective
against everything we meet and we can carry half as much ammunition
again as we can for 120s and there isn't any 120mm canister ammo around
but the Israelis make a _fantastic_ 105 beehive that really scrubs down
the crunchies and the Panthers use the same 105 and so we only have to
buy and supply one set of ammunition and ballistic computer software
which really helps keep the costs down because running tanks, even old
ones like our Merkavas, isn't cheap at all.

Hovercraft aren't really useful in most battlefields. On deserts they
kick up too much dust even just moving at low speed, and they can't cope
with even slight slopes, and broken ground rips the skirts or gets you
bottomed, and "slight reduction" in armour is a bit of an
understatement, I've got a foot and a half of Chobham-derivative and
ablative composite in my glacis plate and there's no hovertank built
with that sort of protection, and they can't cope with firing decent
weapons to the side on the move, in fact as tanks they suck really
badly, though they do have some uses for amphibious assault or recon,
but unless you need to go from water to land really quickly they're a
bit limited.

You have to remember, we're a merc outfit, and that means running costs
get really important, which is why we don't have any T-birds or any Red
Rangers or any other high-maintenance low-armour birds like that. We're
better off accepting a few more M-kills as long as the crews live
through it because you can replace machinery but people you can't.

I wouldn't say "no" to the evaluation, though, but I have to be honest
and say it probably won't do any good, even now that Uncle Sasha's
buying jet fighters and some transport turboprops they're all _old_
designs because that way he can keep them cheap and have really well
trained crews even if the hardware's a bit elderly rather than have
really flashy SOTA equipment that he can't afford to train crews for or
use properly in case he lost it.

But it sounds interesting and maybe I'm being biased and it could be fun
so yes, please, I'd like that.]<<<<<
-- Stephanie <01:24:54/02-12-58>

From:	Jeffrey Mach <mach@****.CALTECH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Toys
Date:	Thu, 13 Feb 1997 12:55:22 -0800

Message no. 3 *****PRIVATE: Stephanie
>>>>>[ Rifled??? You still use a 105mm rifled? How do you launch your
smart rounds?

Pardon me, we haven't been introduced, but a mutual friend, Vernier,
dumped your last couple messages in my box and set me up with temporary
access to S-land so we could talk.

As I was saying, even the venerable Abrams went smoothbore so they could
launch a missile (or a hypersonic ramjet-round later) out the cannon if
they wanted to, plus even the gyro-stabilization and wind compensation
back then could stabilize the gun to go 10 for 10 over rolling terrain at
a moving target a mile out. That's one of the reasons the old USA did so
well in the war that broke out in the Middle East around the turn of the
millennium. You've probably heard about it in history class. (I think of
it as a precursor to Desert Wars for all the eval it did on the weapon
systems of the day.) Course now that's like shooting blind compared to a
good tactical computer and a rigged tank with a good sensors package, but
unless you're using plain slugs and plan on shooting gnats at 2000 yards,
I'm not sure why you don't use smoothbore and give yourself more
ammunition options. I mean, do you guys even use terminal guidance or
hypersonic munitions?

I understand that a good 105 at reasonable range can penetrate most APC's,
and some tanks, but what about a frontline main battle tank and what about
accuracy? Even a 16 inch gun like they had on the antique battleships
isn't much use unless it can hit it's target. To make sure you hit the
target, you have two choices, make sure that the bullet is smart enough to
compensate for your enemy's trickery, or make it fast enough that it gets
there in so little time your enemy _can't_ cope (plus the enhanced
kinetic kill factor helps). That's why a few MBT's don't even use cannon
anymore. The Stonewall (hardly State of the Art nowadays and a hovertank,
might I add), is usually outfitted with a rail gun as main ordnance. It
is very hard to get out of the way of a chunk of plasma going Mach 8+ and
if you don't, the results can be spectacular. Now I can seriously
understand why a merc unit, keeping an eye on the bottom line wouldn't
want railguns on everything that moved in their motor pool, but you may
want to give it some thought for enemies who are tougher eggs to crack.

As for hovertanks, I think you have a bit of confusion here. We are not
talking hover_craft_. When I say hovertank, I am talking more along the
lines of the Ares Athena LAV scout cavalry vehicle (which I happened to
pilot in the last Desert War and have the lack of scars to prove it) all
the way up to that behemoth the Heracles MBHT. They are all thunderbirds,
like the familiar GMC Banshee or DocWagon LAV's (which are actually a
toned down version of a LAV-APC). I totally agree, hover_craft_ are best
designed for amphibious assault, when you need to get people and supplies
on shore fast, but low altitude vehicles don't have half the problems a
hover_craft_ has, especially in the horsepower department. Okay, they
aren't as fuel miserly as a modern hovercraft, but they aren't as fragile
or slow either. Yes, you may kick up a bit more dust in the desert, but
even a treaded tank looks like a sand-storm if it is running at speed, and
who the hell wants to run at low speed when you are in a fire fight.

The original concept behind the designs I've worked on was to provide a
hybrid between the old ground-pounding tank concept and the relatively
fragile gunships that hunted them with the relatively recent advancements
made in LAV technology. For several decades now people have been working
on taking advantage of wing in ground effect (somehow LAV, "el-ay-vee"
sounds better than WiGE, "wiggee") and developing efficient enough
vectored thrust propulsion systems to make the idea viable. Emphasis on
the word "enough," of course. Anybody who's ever ran a Banshee to its
red-line will tell you it would be more efficient to just pop the
emergency fuel dumps. Hell I couldn't believe GMC made the thing to go
near sonic either, but it does, although it's like trying to fly a EFA
through a brick wall. I totally realize a modern army fights on it's fuel
tank, so if I was going to recommend some designs they would emphasize
range and maneuverability instead of raw straight line speed.

Don't let some old tread heads tell you that anything with its feet on
the ground has to be tons more fuel efficient than a t-bird. Sure you can
sit still at idle sipping gas and let artillery pound you into scrap, or
you can move. Now when you get rolling, you have to deal with every bump
and hump and rock trying to slow you down and frankly, most track tanks
are about as aerodynamic as a cinder-block, because the designers never
imagined them doing more than 50kph. Plus, if you happen to use a
turbine, that big ass engine has to deal with hauling those treads around
at ludicrously slow pace compared to what the engine could be doing. Now
take a t-bird tank, you don't have to deal with rough terrain, you just
glide over it, your turbines are purring away at the speed God and their
engineers intended, and a descent ground effect shape will cut your
cross-section and make you even more efficient at speed so you can run
with--and in many cases, outpace--the choppers trying to give you a bad
day. Plus you have twice the armor and firepower, which will give them a
bad day.

As for armor, bet they didn't point out to you that with ferro-fibrous
matrix, monocrystal tech, and a few other toys that the armor guru's have
been working on as well as improving the ceramic composite like you use,
they can give you all the protection without having to resort to a foot
and a half of armor. By the by, how the hell do you move under all that?
It won't do you any good if you can't avoid the steel rain and get
yourself shredded. That Banshee I was mentioning earlier, it has 20% more
effective armor on it than a Devil Rat light tank if you're talking the
stock models. All modesty aside, I could hook you up with better. There
is actually no reason you couldn't run a t-bird that gives you almost as
much protection as you have now.

Now a hover-tank will cost you, I won't kid you about it, but lets put
this in perspective. To get you a hover-tank with as much armor and
weapons as a tank with treads (a.k.a. all things being equal) will
probably run you about 2-3 times the price and cost you about twice as
much to run. _However_, you will be getting a 5 or more fold increase in
speed and agility, which translates to a more stable firing platform that
is harder to hit, harder to predict, and can get your firepower where you
need it sooner than your opponent all of which equals a more than
comparable boost in killpower. So not only do you lose less machines, you
lose less men. Frankly, it is very rare that there is a vehicular kill
that didn't kill the occupants other than by having the crew get out and
run away. Most armies are less than helpful to the wounded inside an
enemy tank, and most tank killer's reaction to seeing a limping ground
pounder is to put a few more rounds into it just to be sure. So as far as
I know, an M-kill equals a crew kill.

Do any of your units have turbine engines? I ask because they are common
in high-horsepower monsters like tanks. If so, the maintenance on a
thunderbird is no different in concept, but the configuration is a bit
different. Since you say you have an air group, the work, in comparison
is little different, if not easier since most of the equipment is designed
for the punishment of being a tank. Basically, a well designed hovertank
should be not significantly harder to maintain than a MBT or a fighter,
just a little different (i.e. fighters generally do not have cyclonic air
filtration on their ducts to keep the sand, dirt, and leaves out of the
engine).

As for training, any company that sells (or leases) you a vehicle and
doesn't provide any training or tech support for a nominal overcharge
isn't worth buying from. Frankly piloting a good LAV isn't much more
different than driving a tank, other than you get a minor ammount of a
third dimension to play with.

Sorry if I have sounded like too much of a used car salesman, but the "men
upstairs" have sent me to enough trade-shows that some of the lines become
hard-wired. I guess I mainly wanted to clear up a few of your
misconceptions and encourage you to consider the use of thunderbirds as a
way to expand your options on the battlefield. If your commander really
sees no place for t-birds in his unit, that's his decision (or loss as the
case may be). The state of the art can be a cruel bitch. She'll cost you
in your pocketbook, or she'll cost you on the battlefield. You have to
decide which is the higher cost.

Before I could recommend some models, though, I would need to know what
kind of opposition do you usually find yourself up against. Like I
wouldn't try to get you to look at a Heracles if you never saw action
against frontline armor. But even in the third world, an Athena could
come in mighty useful. I could set up a meeting with you and your C.O.
some time next week if you want. Meanwhile, enjoy a few glossies to give
you something to think about:

+++++include: LAV.productline.overview.trid
+++++include: Athena.spec
+++++include: Heracles.spec
+++++include: Hermes.spec

P.S. You have to be kidding me about the Merkavas, right? I mean, that
platform is nearly _seventy_ years old. You mean completely rebuilt
Merkavas built off the Mark V specs or some new design I just haven't
heard of that venerates the old name or something. Right?]<<<<<
-- Stainless Steel Rat <12:39:12/02-13-58>

From:	Jeffrey Mach <mach@****.CALTECH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Toys
Date:	Thu, 13 Feb 1997 20:16:57 -0800

Message no. 4 *****To: Vernier
>>>>>[Stainless Steel Rat??!!?!?!? What the hell kind of a name is
Stainless Steel Rat?!?!?!? I mean, Desert Fox, Sandstorm, Hermes,
anything but...that. I don't know why I'm even putting up with
this.]<<<<<
-- Stainless Steel Rat <20:11:59/02-13-58>

*****To: Stainless Steel Rat
>>>>>[You should read more. Besides, I thought it was kinda cute. I
could have named you after what Hikaru always calls t-birds. How'd you
like to go with the moniker: Thunderbucket? As for why, one word:
commission. 'Nuff said.]<<<<<
-- Vernier <20:21:12/02-13-58>

From:	"Paul J. Adam" <shadowtk@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: Toys
Date:	Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:41:35 +0000

Message no. 5 *****PRIVATE: Stainless Steel Rat
>>>>>[We launch smart rounds the way we do APFSDS: slipping driving
bands, no problem at all. We only really use them for anti-aircraft
work, we tend to go for the "dumb shell, smart gunner" principle to keep
costs down, which means we kick ass on most Third World nations but we
don't take on corporate or major national forces.

We don't use hypersonics, mostly because of cost again, electrothermal
guns are good but the ones compatible with the vehicles we have are too
expensive to train with, and since our gunners can get through a few
hundred practice rounds a year and I don't know how much subcalibre and
simulated it would put us out of business. We find the 105s work on
pretty much anything we meet.

As for accuracy, my gunner can group on a 1x1 metre target at 3,000
metres on the move, which again is plenty good enough, you can't usually
see further than that. Lethality's excellent, especially now some people
are using Banshees or Stonewalls and calling them "tanks" and trying to
use them as tanks, they really don't cope with IMI rounds at all well.
They've got too much firepower for comfort, which is why we don't go up
against them by choice, but we can kill them as fast as they can kill
us, sort of the old battlecruiser ideal, and we're a _lot_ stealthier.

You hit the nail right on the head, though, we aren't state-of-the-art,
we're not front-line, we're an overstrength mech battalion using old,
cheap, reliable hardware and really really skilled people to win battles
for our customers. The last big tank-versus-tank scrap we had was with a
rebel faction from Luanda, north of Windhoek, and they brought about
thirty T-97s and sixty BMP-5s and we still kicked their butts: four
Merkavas and eight Panthers with helo, arty and infantry support make a
really good ambush.

The hovertanks... sound sort of interesting, except I'm not sure how
well they'd do in the Drakensberg escarpments, or the terrain around
Windhoek, and I certainly wouldn't want to do jungle or forest work in
one, but I bet they'd kick ass in open desert where they can really use
their speed and agility.

And the real problem is cost, cost, cost, unless you can guarantee
maintenance runs for a hundred K a year or less per vehicle - we
surprise people with how little it costs to run our vehicles - we can't
afford it. We're looking at upgrading the armour with monocrystalline
insert packs, but right now add-on packs of FFC are cheaper. As for
DPICM, hammock netting works really really well, even if it is too cheap
and simple for some. I know some of the fancier munitions will cut that
or ignore it, but those cost nearly as much per round as our tanks did
in the first place. Though actually upgrading is going to be expensive,
and the HETs are getting pretty worn, and maybe we should think about
something new anyway.

To be honest, I agree with most of what you say, it's just more proof of
why we don't take on corporate or overtly corp-backed forces, because
stuff like this is just too difficult to deal with on the battlefield.
Of course there are ways to cheat, but none of them are totally
reliable, except "fight in terrain that favours treadheads over
flyboys". Which surrenders the initiative, but then if we run up against
a troop or two of these then we're retreating and negotiating withdrawal
as it is.

Now, I'd be really interested in your proposal anyway, because you make
good points and none of us have up-close experience of LAVs except for
fighting Banshees and a couple of Stonewalls, because nobody's bothered
to try selling us any. The Heracles would be total overkill for us, but
the Hermes - with some mods, but a couple of your factory options are
close - looks very promising indeed. If that went well and was
economical enough we might, longer-term, look at some Athenas to replace
the Panthers.

The Merkavas have British 1500hp diesels - I know it's low by modern
standards but they're reliable and economical - with gas-turbine APUs,
but we're finishing the training cycle to acquire our first flight each
of MiG-57s and C-130Ks, so we have gas-turbine-trained people and our
current crews are smart and could retrain fairly easily. Turbines tend
to be repair-by-replacement anyway at front line level.

And, you're right, the Merkavas are new-build Mark Vs downgunned with RO
105mm guns instead of the 120mm smoothbores, newer-tech armour, modern
fire control, and other tweaks. Old, reliable, survivable, trustworthy
and cheap to run with easy spares and ammo availability. Same as most of
our other platforms, actually.

So you are sort of selling uphill, but I'm interested because I like a
salesman who knows and loves his subject, and if you can make a good
pitch then Colonel Rusanov might be persuaded also.

The unit is in Tacoma, Seattle, at >>encrypted<<. Contact the Colonel
directly to set up an appointment, I'll let him know you'll be in touch.
His office number is >>telecom no.<< and is twenty-four hours.

Thanks for calling, and I'm looking forward to meeting you.]<<<<<
-- Stephanie <15:42:32/02-14-58>

From:	Jeffrey Mach <mach@****.CALTECH.EDU>
Subject:	Toys
Date:	Thu, 25 Jun 1998 04:31:22 -0700

Message no. 6 *****Private: Centurion
>>>>>[So, I hear you've been grumbling about your deck being so slow the
kiddies on their grade-school decks are giving you trouble. Boss won't
give you the dough to upgrade hardwear, or something.

I think I can help you.

Just need a little data in return.

Full specs and interface data on:

ADT Spartan (basic and cqb)
Cancer
Achilles

That should be all. In return, I can manage to make sure that some
non-standard hardware and software ends up in your deck and your software
recompiled for it. This sound appealing?

+++++Include: toys.data]<<<<<
-- Vernier <20:48:54/06-24-59 PDT>

*****Private: Vernier
>>>>>[Well, if you heard that, then I take it you've heard I was one of
the guys that's been doggin' you these past months.

As for the data, no go. I ain't risking my job on shit like that even if
you had something worth barganing for so I ain't even going to read your
damn list of bri

Ho MOmmA.

You're not shitting me, are you? Can you actually scam some neuropts
like that?

Let me think about it. Get back to you later. Wait...recompile?
In other words, you have to have access to all the software on my
deck, right? Not something I can do w/out you, right? I see the
catch.

Still...let me think about it.]<<<<<
-- Centurion <20:51:12/06-24-59 PDT>

From:	Jeffrey Mach <mach@****.CALTECH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Toys
Date:	Thu, 25 Jun 1998 18:35:06 -0700

Message no. 7 *****Private: Vernier
>>>>>[Okay.... I've thought about it. I'll bite.

I'm taking an extended weekend off, so I can get you my deck until Monday.
Any longer and somebody's going to notice.

Meet me at >>encrypted<< at >>time<<. I smell something funny and
I'm out
of there.

We'll use the same spot to switch back, preferably Sunday.

I couldn't get the specs on the cqb though. That things still in
proto-stage, so the data is locked up in a fortress even _I_ get
nightmares about. The rest, I got what I could. I'll leave them on my
deck for you to find.

Only because I know you well enough that I'm betting you just want to burn
out the sim, I'm willing to do this crap....

My life's wrapped up in that deck, so you better treat it right.]<<<<<
-- Centurion <18:26:24/06-25-59 PDT>

*****Private: Centurion
>>>>>[I can do that.

Pleasure doing buisiness with you.]<<<<<
-- Vernier <18:36:12/06-25-59 PDT>

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer