Where's the US military?

[keir451]

It occurs to me that while we know alot about NEMA and its job, we know next to nothing about what was going on w/ the US military (with the sole exception of the USS Ticonderoga).
I'd love some more info on that.

[Dustin Fireblade]

Jason Richards is working on that. I believe the title is Brothers in Arms.


Personally I think he should totally give up his life to get the book written and out.


I kid I kid. Well mostly anyway.

[Shawn Merrow]

He even admits he can't be trusted.

[jedi078]

It occurs to me that while we know alot about NEMA and its job, we know next to nothing about what was going on w/ the US military (with the sole exception of the USS Ticonderoga).
I'd love some more info on that.

The USMC is mentioned in Rifter #35 and the USAF in Rifter #47. So they exist if you consider the Rifter canon. We know from previous books that there was a U.S. Navy at the time of the great cataclysm.

IMO the U.S. Army, Canadian Army, and Mexican Army essentially became NEMA.

[jedi078]

According to the book Nema replaced NSA the FBI and I think the national guard not sure on the guard.

The National Guard is the reserve component of the U.S. Army.

[everloss]

According to the book Nema replaced NSA the FBI and I think the national guard not sure on the guard.

The National Guard is the reserve component of the U.S. Army.

Actually, the Army Reserve is the Army's reserve component.

The National Guard is the official State militia. That is why each State has its own National Guard, that is answerable to the Governor of that State.

In recent years, the federal government has taken a lot of power away from the States; including taking emergency control over National Guard units. However, each and every National Guard unit is completely separate from the U.S. Army.

[Jason Richards]

Here's how it breaks down:

NEMA took over the bulk of the federal and tri-national law enforcement and homeland security responsibilities, as well as domestic disaster response and crisis management; I'd argue this includes the entirety of the Coast Guard as well. These responsibilities extended into the pursuit of non-uniformed/terrorist threats abroad. In many ways, NEMA became the de facto military for most international actions. Most of the arms and equipment used by NEMA (well, not MOST, but a significant portion) was detailed in the RPG.

The traditional armed forces then adapted in their missions, now absolved of much of their original responsibility. While a standing army was maintained to answer solely to each national government and supplement whatever NEMA was doing (NEMA doesn't maintain a true Navy or Air Force, for example), the primary mission of much of the military became a focus on various Special Forces and other highly mobile, rapid response scenarios. The military was very into a wide array of human augmentation programs as well. This is primarily what will be covered in Chaos Earth: Brothers in Arms (the title I plan to write after Psychic Storm).

Who gets caught in the middle of all of this really are the various reserve forces, namely the military reserves and the National Guard. Their missions were basically hijacked by NEMA, and so their mission has become more and more one of support to the traditional armed forces as well as NEMA. The Reservist O.C.C., which is basically a halfway point between the Civilian O.C.C. and a full military class, is detailed in First Responders.

So, the moral of the story is, if you want all of this information out there in an official form, PM/write to Kevin and tell him how excited you are for First Responders. The sooner it goes to press, the sooner I'll crank out the rest of the CE books.

[jedi078]

Here's how it breaks down:

NEMA took over the bulk of the federal and tri-national law enforcement and homeland security responsibilities, as well as domestic disaster response and crisis management; I'd argue this includes the entirety of the Coast Guard as well. These responsibilities extended into the pursuit of non-uniformed/terrorist threats abroad. In many ways, NEMA became the de facto military for most international actions. Most of the arms and equipment used by NEMA (well, not MOST, but a significant portion) was detailed in the RPG.

The traditional armed forces then adapted in their missions, now absolved of much of their original responsibility. While a standing army was maintained to answer solely to each national government and supplement whatever NEMA was doing (NEMA doesn't maintain a true Navy or Air Force, for example), the primary mission of much of the military became a focus on various Special Forces and other highly mobile, rapid response scenarios. The military was very into a wide array of human augmentation programs as well. This is primarily what will be covered in Chaos Earth: Brothers in Arms (the title I plan to write after Psychic Storm).

Who gets caught in the middle of all of this really are the various reserve forces, namely the military reserves and the National Guard. Their missions were basically hijacked by NEMA, and so their mission has become more and more one of support to the traditional armed forces as well as NEMA. The Reservist O.C.C., which is basically a halfway point between the Civilian O.C.C. and a full military class, is detailed in First Responders.

So, the moral of the story is, if you want all of this information out there in an official form, PM/write to Kevin and tell him how excited you are for First Responders. The sooner it goes to press, the sooner I'll crank out the rest of the CE books.

Thanks for clearing this up. In the two Rifters I mentioned the USAF and USMC OCC's seem to be geared towards special operations. I even did up a SEAL OCC and gave the Marine OCC more MOS options.

One more question. Will the reservists use 'dead boy' style armor (sans the skulls of course) so we know where the CS got the template for their 1st gen armor? IMO it looks like the 2nd gen armor used by the CS was based off of NEMA armor. Especially when we see the correlation between the Fire and Rescue enhanced armor and the enhanced armor used by the CS.

According to the book Nema replaced NSA the FBI and I think the national guard not sure on the guard.

The National Guard is the reserve component of the U.S. Army.

Actually, the Army Reserve is the Army's reserve component.

The National Guard is the official State militia. That is why each State has its own National Guard, that is answerable to the Governor of that State.

In recent years, the federal government has taken a lot of power away from the States; including taking emergency control over National Guard units. However, each and every National Guard unit is completely separate from the U.S. Army.

Then tell me why the U.S. Army trains the National Guard and personnel in the National Guard have name tapes that say US ARMY? If the National Guard was really supposed to be separate from the U.S. Army they'd have their own boot camp (much like the USAF, USN and USMC do), uniform name tapes etc etc etc.

[everloss]

According to the book Nema replaced NSA the FBI and I think the national guard not sure on the guard.

The National Guard is the reserve component of the U.S. Army.

Actually, the Army Reserve is the Army's reserve component.

The National Guard is the official State militia. That is why each State has its own National Guard, that is answerable to the Governor of that State.

In recent years, the federal government has taken a lot of power away from the States; including taking emergency control over National Guard units. However, each and every National Guard unit is completely separate from the U.S. Army.

Then tell me why the U.S. Army trains the National Guard and personnel in the National Guard have name tapes that say US ARMY? If the National Guard was really supposed to be separate from the U.S. Army they'd have their own boot camp (much like the USAF, USN and USMC do), uniform name tapes etc etc etc.[/quote]


the simplest answer is cost. It costs a lot to train personnel. And the National Guard exists at the discretion of the Constitution and Congress. It is federally funded. In essence, you can say that the National Guard acts as a reserve component for the Army and Air Force, but it is still a distinctive branch(es) of service on its own, as its primary duties are homeland protection from invasion and natural disasters. Really, in the context of this argument, NEMA has taken over for the National Guard. Which would logically still leave the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps as the main components of the US armed forces.

from wikipedia:
The National Guard of the United States is a reserve military force composed of state National Guard militia members or units under federally recognized active or inactive armed force service for the United States.

Established under Title 10 and Title 32 of the U.S. Code, state National Guard serves as part of the first-line defense for the United States.[4] The state National Guard is divided up into units stationed in each of the 50 states and U.S. territories and operates under their respective state governor or territorial adjutant general.[5] The National Guard may be called up for active duty by state governors or territorial adjutant general to help respond to domestic emergencies and disasters, such as those caused by hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes.

Also, as I said; in recent years, the federal government has been taking away the rights of the states; including 3 years ago when the federal government did this:
The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 Pub.L. 109-364

Federal law was changed in section 1076 so that the Governor of a state is no longer the sole commander in chief of their state's National Guard during emergencies within the state. The President of the United States will now be able to take total control of a state's National Guard units without the governor's consent.[14] In a letter to Congress all 50 governors opposed the increase in power of the president over the National Guard.[15]

The National Defense Authorization Act 2008 Pub.L. 110-181

Repeals provisions in section 1076 in Pub.L. 109-364 but still enables the President to call up the National Guard of the United States for active federal military service during Congressionally sanctioned national emergency or war. Places the National Guard Bureau directly under the Department of Defense as a joint activity. Promoted the Chief of the National Guard Bureau from a three-star to a four-star general.



If you really want to, we can just say we're both right and leave it at that.

[Jason Richards]

No Dead Boy armor for the Army. At least, not directly. Remember that there are 300 years between the Chaos Earth RPG and the Rifts RPG. While all based on the same tech, the application would have to be different. Were I to have written the CERPG, honestly, I wouldn't have simply duplicated the CS gear and put a NEMA sticker on it. I don't think that really adds up and, to be honest it's a little lazy, not to mention boring. After all, you HAVE the stats for the CS gear, so I want to give you something new..

So, to sum up, I'll use the stats from CS stuff as a benchmark, and even copy it where dictated by the canon or it makes sense, but overall I want to write things that are new and useful.

Just another example of how I view this. First Responders has a fair amount of medical/emergency gear, a lot of which was established in the Risfts canon, like the various nanobot medical devices. Naturally I couldn't change those devices. What I COULD do, however, is include additional notes about how they are used in conjunction with your character's medical skills. Even basic gear that is in every book, like a First Aid kit, is written in that spirit, and now includes notes on its use with Medical skills, providing a buff when it's used. Otherwise, what's the point of having it if it provides no advantage?

As to NEMA's role, it's safe to assume that in any action involving terrorists or rogue militaries, NEMA is in charge and the militaries provide support. The militaries would act without NEMA in military actions between nations, but it appears that wasn't common during the Golden Age or the years leading up to it.

[glitterboy2098]

when writing up the army gear, how much of the 'future military' concepts currently being looked at do you plan to use? are these going to be 'core concepts' to the 2090's military, or will they be relegated to 'old plans developed to fight yesterday's wars'?

for example, the computer network heavy, Expeditionary force/rapid response centric, 'Future Force Warrior" and "Future Combat Systems" the Military has been developing?

[Jason Richards]

when writing up the army gear, how much of the 'future military' concepts currently being looked at do you plan to use? are these going to be 'core concepts' to the 2090's military, or will they be relegated to 'old plans developed to fight yesterday's wars'?

for example, the computer network heavy, Expeditionary force/rapid response centric, 'Future Force Warrior" and "Future Combat Systems" the Military has been developing?

I'm sort of limited to the sorts of things that we've seen in NEMA's armor, which is supposed to be top rate. Although, to be honest, while the descriptions of optics and communications in MDC armor is fairly bland, the bonuses and capabilities listed really probably include those "future military" types of concepts.

But, for experimental or highly advanced things, I'll probably take a stab at a few high-tech gizmos. Most likely, I'll include some class-specific gear that will more or less act as class-specific abilities, much like a Boom Gun is little more than a class-specific ability to the CG/GB. That's all just part of my role to create unique character classes for CE rather than everything being poured into the same three or four molds over and over again.

[jedi078]

Actually I like the fact that CS equipment is based upon NEMA's. It show's that the CS not only copied the SAMAS design but other designs as well. Heck a GM could even use a CS version of the Gunbuster as a precursor to the ground based power armors introduced in CWC.

[keir451]

Jason Richards wrote:
NEMA took over the bulk of the federal and tri-national law enforcement and homeland security responsibilities, as well as domestic disaster response and crisis management; I'd argue this includes the entirety of the Coast Guard as well. These responsibilities extended into the pursuit of non-uniformed/terrorist threats abroad. In many ways, NEMA became the de facto military for most international actions. Most of the arms and equipment used by NEMA (well, not MOST, but a significant portion) was detailed in the RPG.

I would personally disagree with NEMA taking over the role of the Coast Guard, the CG is part of our current military (it does answer to the DOD and the President) NEMA might lias w/ the CG but the CG has one job and that is to patrol our immediate coastal regions and ports. Technically the Navy's job is to protect our shipping lanes and prevent piracy as well as be a "transport service" for our other forces. NEMA has to serve all three nations not just the US, so it actually makes sense for the US to keep the Coast Guard and let NEMA handle the inland stuff.

[Jason Richards]

Actually, the CG is now governed by homeland security unless called into war service.

In any case, border security is clearly stated to be a mission of NEMA, I think.

[keir451]

Actually, the CG is now governed by homeland security unless called into war service.

In any case, border security is clearly stated to be a mission of NEMA, I think.

I'm not as certain about things nowadays, as far as I knew the CG reported to the DOD tho' one could call their job "homeland security" anyway. Here's a link that gives a basic run down of the CG's objectives and duties, some of which (Ice Patrol) might be outside NEMAs mission prerogitives. http://www.answers.com/topic/semper-paratus. And, yes, they are part of the Dept. of homeland security. but unless KS alters the background of NEMA, the Dept. of Homeland security seems to outside the orginizations (FBI, NSA, CIA) they replaced.

Yeah I can see border security as one of NEMA's roles, SAMAS' would work well for short range rescue efforts that don't involve things like the high winds one gets on the oceans or inland during storms, they're just not heavy enough.

[Jason Richards]

Honestly, it's best not to try and throw too much logic into NEMA's role and mission. If you look too deeply into why a domestic security organization that mostly replaced the CIA and FBI and such has mobile cannons with Boom Guns stationed across the U.S., you might go crosseyed.

[jedi078]

Honestly, it's best not to try and throw too much logic into NEMA's role and mission. If you look too deeply into why a domestic security organization that mostly replaced the CIA and FBI and such has mobile cannons with Boom Guns stationed across the U.S., you might go crosseyed.

Due to the fact NEMA uses military grade equipment it makes more sense for NEMA to have replaced the US, Canadian and Mexican Armies as well as the three nations intelligence agencies.

[Jason Richards]

Honestly, it's best not to try and throw too much logic into NEMA's role and mission. If you look too deeply into why a domestic security organization that mostly replaced the CIA and FBI and such has mobile cannons with Boom Guns stationed across the U.S., you might go crosseyed.

Due to the fact NEMA uses military grade equipment it makes more sense for NEMA to have replaced the US, Canadian and Mexican Armies as well as the three nations intelligence agencies.

I agree that would explain it, but that's not the case that we're given. It's an easy rewrite, though. I'm just saying that there are a lot of things that don't really add up about NEMA (including the name) and some level of just putting it out of your mind is required. Rifts is the same way, honestly. On some level these are fantasy games, and the logistical things aren't really taken into consideration.

Just another example of this: What authority, if any, does the President have over American NEMA troops? What about Canadian or Mexican NEMA troops on joint operations within the United States? Is there a commander-in-chief of some kind within the NAA that is ultimately the head of NEMA? We can speculate on these things (I've tried to noodle through it on my own, I promise you), but we can only speculate. That's because these things aren't really important to the story being told by the Characters via the GM, so it's just glossed over. That's okay, honestly. It just means that if it enters into our own games, we deal with it as we like and move on.

And, for the record, while future supplements written by Jason Richards will contain some more information about the organization of NEMA and such, I'm not going to attempt to tackle these overall sort of issues, instead following in the handwavium sort of spirit of the original game.

[Arnie100]

I just wanna see this book come out!

[keir451]

Honestly, it's best not to try and throw too much logic into NEMA's role and mission. If you look too deeply into why a domestic security organization that mostly replaced the CIA and FBI and such has mobile cannons with Boom Guns stationed across the U.S., you might go crosseyed.

Yeah therein lies the problem, if KS had said that the GB's were US Army instead of inventing NEMA things would make more sense, but he didn't, so we gotta work with what we have. Unfortunately I've been weened away from the "just accept it/handwavium school of gaming" and find I enjoy things better if they are more logical (sometimes tho' I just gotta throw logic out the window and do something crazy). Thus I am (unfortunately for some) one of those who can't accept the idea of NEMA taking on the role of a multi national military or even replacing the organizations it's said to have replaced (not that I won't buy the books or insult your efforts).
BTW is there a "time line" of sorts for when the US/Canada/Mexico treaty went into effect and NEMA was created? I'd think they'd have to have been in existance for at least 20+ years to be "accepted" as a viable organization.

[Jason Richards]

Were I to have written it, I would have approached NEMA differently than did Kevin, but it now is what it is; I'm definitely a details-oriented sort of guy. I think by trying to "make it work" with complicated explanations you can make it worse, though, so I just avoid some of these issues.

There is some limited timeline stuff regarding the establishment of NEMA but I don't have it in front of me.

[glitterboy2098]

Honestly, it's best not to try and throw too much logic into NEMA's role and mission. If you look too deeply into why a domestic security organization that mostly replaced the CIA and FBI and such has mobile cannons with Boom Guns stationed across the U.S., you might go crosseyed.

actually, i think there is a very reasonable explanation that would account for all of NEMA's quirks, while tying into your idea about their oversea's role.

NEMA is the 'militant arm' of the U.S.(or canadian/mexican) Department of State. think about the State Department's role. it manages the intellegence agencies of the U.S. (CIA, FBI, NDA, and all the other Acronym's..). it handles foreign Assitance programs (such as rebuilding countries the U.S. has/is fighting wars in, amoung other things), domestic Assistance programs (FEMA and others), Handles Arms Control, Counter-Terrorism co-ordination, Human Rights, and a multitude of others. it has it's own 'army' in the form of private military firms like Blackwater Worldwide, some of which have become so intertwined with the State Department they're effectively no longer just hired hands.

pretty much everything NEMA does. only NEMA is not only multi-national (US, mexico, and canada), but also presumably has a more streamlined organizational structure. i would assume that when the three nations finalized their alliance, they merged their state departments, with NEMA being the result of assigning them a dedicated armed force, to reduce the reliance on any of the three nations normal militaries, and prevent the use of what are effectively mercenaries. (this would presumably include merging groups like the FBI's Hostage rescue Teams, and their canadian and mexican counterparts, into the new force to provide Cadre.)


Frankly, NEMA's role in oversea's conflicts would effect the other branches alot IMO. presumably the US, mexico, and canada all kept their normal militaries seperate, (otherwise the US navy/Marines would not exist to form the new navy.) beside, merging the three would cause doctrinal headaches strong enough to kill the team assigned to work it out. (like canada's "all one branch" approach...) this would also help explain why the canadian RCMP aren't part of NEMA (thus avoiding a nasty bit of retconing) they just didn't include them into NEMA's foundation.

now, i'll focus on the US (don't know enough about canada's or mexico's militaries to make suggestions)

for the US, i'd expect the marines to become the "go to" quick deploy force for any conflict. that's basically what they are now, and the WB7 depiction, including the pre-rifts hardware, backs that up. in an extension of the current Marine Expeditionary Unit, their hardware is optimized for rapid deployment to a theatre of conflict by either Air Transport (which we don't see in WB7) or by ship. their hardware tends to be lightweight but capable, as a result. for the pre-rifts navy, i'd assume 'modernized' versions of the ASW carrier/Amphibious assualt ships (basically the 20th century designs built with slightly newer hardware...what the CS found) as a core force, while the advanced "golden age tech" versions were built (leaving the Ticonderoga as the only 'advanced' ship to carry marines)

The US Army would also be oriented more towards rapid deployment. unlike the marines though, which use light gear to hit fast and claim ground, the Army would use heavier gear, takign a bit longer to deploy, but optimised for hard hitting Blitzkreig style attacks. heavily reliant on Cavalry type tactics using Main Battle Tank units (perhaps the types that would become the Iron Heart MBT's in RIFTS), supported by Mechanized Infantry units using APC's (see comment on the MBT's). unlike the current Army, non-mechanized Infantry would be rare, as those traditionally are employed for the occupation duties that NEMA fills in the 2nd cold war era.

the US Navy would be largely unchanged, IMO. perhaps a greater emphasis on Submarines, as a result of orbital weapons. (why else build a submarine aircraft carrier like the Ticonderoga?) i suspect the current Gerald Ford class super carriers would remain in use throughout the time of peace and into the 2nd cold war. during the peace there would be no budget to build new ones, though maintaining the force might be seens as worthwhile, especially as advancing tech would make maintaining them easier. since the Gerald Ford class is basically a "nimitz +", these would be the type of ship the CS found. the aircraft however i would expect to be more modern (easier to build new planes than new surface carriers..especially if you have the Ticonderoga class super carriers underway already) the Seahawk fighter i could see replacing the F/A-18 of today, though the F-35 might stick around on some of the surface ships with an MDC update. (honestly, it's the F-14's that make the biggest continuity headache...)
the Airforce would see a major change. first, i expect large bombers will have been reduced in role. Strategic attacks on cities can be done via orbital weapons, and the main use for 'bombers' would be bomb trucks for guided tactical munitions, much the same way the B-52's were used in Afghanistan and iraq. and even there, it's probably going to be more effective in most theatres to employ UCAV drones than large manned planes. (though the Iron Heart bomber came from somewhere...hmm.) i'd imagine that with nuclear thermal jet systems, the traditional limits on range will be gone, now it's more the endurance of the pilots rear end that limits how far you can fly.
the big change i'd expect for the air Force is the transition to an "Aerospace force", as their space defense role expands to include more than just watching for space junk and enemy ICBM's. anti-sattelite weapons, sub orbital space-planes for launching said weapons, and running the orbital weapons platforms are all going to be an Airforce job by CE. in the case of a war, job one would be to knock out the enemies orbital weapons, comm sats, spy sats, and so on...before said enemy knocks down yours. and it's all an airforce job.

[Jason Richards]

All good thoughts. Someone mentioned the RCMP, and let me tell you, the Canada book really screws anyone writing Chaos Earth stuff. We already have broken continuity between the CE RPG and Canada in terms of equipment, so I haven't decided how to deal with that. Honestly there will have to be at least some retcon, there.

The idea of NEMA being a miltary for a combined state department is interesting, but I don't know that it answers all the questions. I still think it's a stretch to have what is primarily said to be a peacekeeping and law enforcement agency to have Boom Guns and Silve Eagles.

Part of the problem is that we have zero information on the government of the NAA. It is alluded that it is similar to the EU, but to control a standing military as powerful and specialized and varied in mission as NEMA, the structure would need to be pretty different. For example, for an international state department to control federal law enforcement in each country would be a pretty dramatic departure for what are three very sovereign and independent nations. As presented in the CE RPG, it sounds like NEMA's role domestically is on the borders and whenever law enforcement needs cross borders, and for that same agency to also have a standing military that wages war overseas... oh, man, my eyes just got stuck while rolling.

We'll figure it out, but first Palladium needs to publish First Responders.

[Dustin Fireblade]

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter I suppose. Sure it might be nice to have how everything is structured, if you are going to write a book about the 'Golden Age' I suppose. If not then I'm not real sure we need to know a lot of details.

[glitterboy2098]

The idea of NEMA being a miltary for a combined state department is interesting, but I don't know that it answers all the questions. I still think it's a stretch to have what is primarily said to be a peacekeeping and law enforcement agency to have Boom Guns and Silve Eagles.

Blackwater Worldwide has heavy Lift transports, armed Helicopters, armed Vehicles, builds it's own heavily armored APC, even has it's own Naval force.
the other two private military contractors the state department employs are similar, though smaller.

we don't usually think of the US state department as having it's own military, but they do. and a fairly potent one at that.

given that unlike the current private contractors, NEMA would not be able to rely on the Army and Marines to provide the heavy muscle in an occupation scenario, NEMA having it's own supply of armored combat units and other force multipliers isn't much of a stretch.


as for the issue of three nations and NEMA, perhaps each of the three nations established a seperate branch of NEMA. so there would be a Canadian NEMA, a U.S. NEMA, and a mexican NEMA, all with similar hardware and roles, but reporting to their respective state departments.

[jaymz]

I think gb2098 was just trying to point out that the state department does have military forces at its disposal and while in the present they are limited, by CE times NEMA would be a arge expansion on the same idea so to speak.

[Jason Richards]

That's not the only definition of what "paramilitary" is, either. Paramilitary really just means "like the military" in terms of structure. Most law enforcement agencies are paramilitary organizations.

[jaymz]

That's not the only definition of what "paramilitary" is, either. Paramilitary really just means "like the military" in terms of structure. Most law enforcement agencies are paramilitary organizations.

With not that different of rank structure either in some ways.

[Nadrakas]

actually, i think there is a very reasonable explanation that would account for all of NEMA's quirks, while tying into your idea about their oversea's role.

NEMA is the 'militant arm' of the U.S.(or canadian/mexican) Department of State. think about the State Department's role. it manages the intellegence agencies of the U.S. (CIA, FBI, NDA, and all the other Acronym's..). it handles foreign Assitance programs (such as rebuilding countries the U.S. has/is fighting wars in, amoung other things), domestic Assistance programs (FEMA and others), Handles Arms Control, Counter-Terrorism co-ordination, Human Rights, and a multitude of others. it has it's own 'army' in the form of private military firms like Blackwater Worldwide, some of which have become so intertwined with the State Department they're effectively no longer just hired hands.

Forgive me, but The State Department doesn't manage the CIA, FBI, or NDA. They do have their own intelligence asset, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR). The CIA is an independent agency [url https://www.cia.gov/]Central Intelligence Agency[/url], the FBI falls under the Justice Department Federal Bureau of Intelligence, the Defense Intelligence Agency (NDA??), it falls under the Department of Defense [ur http://www.dia.mil/]Defense Intelligence Agency[/url], and FEMA falls under the Department of Homeland Defense Federal Emergency Management Agency.

As for the State Department being militant...the Political Appointee's may be (or seem) "militant", but the rank and file members are Doves through and through. Their "Army" is for the most part a Security "Guard" Force -- well paid, able to carry out Personal Defensive Operations, but unable to carry out Offensive Operations. If the State Department were to start carrying out Military Operations around the world, then they would loose a lot of credibility and influence with other nations , both friend and foe.

pretty much everything NEMA does. only NEMA is not only multi-national (US, mexico, and canada), but also presumably has a more streamlined organizational structure. i would assume that when the three nations finalized their alliance, they merged their state departments, with NEMA being the result of assigning them a dedicated armed force, to reduce the reliance on any of the three nations normal militaries, and prevent the use of what are effectively mercenaries. (this would presumably include merging groups like the FBI's Hostage rescue Teams, and their canadian and mexican counterparts, into the new force to provide Cadre.)

Again, I don't think that the State Department, even if the three Nations Combined theirs into One, would have their own Military Force. (See Later in the Post for more explanation).

Frankly, NEMA's role in oversea's conflicts would effect the other branches alot IMO. presumably the US, mexico, and canada all kept their normal militaries seperate, (otherwise the US navy/Marines would not exist to form the new navy.) beside, merging the three would cause doctrinal headaches strong enough to kill the team assigned to work it out. (like canada's "all one branch" approach...) this would also help explain why the canadian RCMP aren't part of NEMA (thus avoiding a nasty bit of retconing) they just didn't include them into NEMA's foundation.

now, i'll focus on the US (don't know enough about canada's or mexico's militaries to make suggestions)

for the US, i'd expect the marines to become the "go to" quick deploy force for any conflict. that's basically what they are now, and the WB7 depiction, including the pre-rifts hardware, backs that up. in an extension of the current Marine Expeditionary Unit, their hardware is optimized for rapid deployment to a theatre of conflict by either Air Transport (which we don't see in WB7) or by ship. their hardware tends to be lightweight but capable, as a result. for the pre-rifts navy, i'd assume 'modernized' versions of the ASW carrier/Amphibious assualt ships (basically the 20th century designs built with slightly newer hardware...what the CS found) as a core force, while the advanced "golden age tech" versions were built (leaving the Ticonderoga as the only 'advanced' ship to carry marines)

The US Army would also be oriented more towards rapid deployment. unlike the marines though, which use light gear to hit fast and claim ground, the Army would use heavier gear, takign a bit longer to deploy, but optimised for hard hitting Blitzkreig style attacks. heavily reliant on Cavalry type tactics using Main Battle Tank units (perhaps the types that would become the Iron Heart MBT's in RIFTS), supported by Mechanized Infantry units using APC's (see comment on the MBT's). unlike the current Army, non-mechanized Infantry would be rare, as those traditionally are employed for the occupation duties that NEMA fills in the 2nd cold war era.

the US Navy would be largely unchanged, IMO. perhaps a greater emphasis on Submarines, as a result of orbital weapons. (why else build a submarine aircraft carrier like the Ticonderoga?) i suspect the current Gerald Ford class super carriers would remain in use throughout the time of peace and into the 2nd cold war. during the peace there would be no budget to build new ones, though maintaining the force might be seens as worthwhile, especially as advancing tech would make maintaining them easier. since the Gerald Ford class is basically a "nimitz +", these would be the type of ship the CS found. the aircraft however i would expect to be more modern (easier to build new planes than new surface carriers..especially if you have the Ticonderoga class super carriers underway already) the Seahawk fighter i could see replacing the F/A-18 of today, though the F-35 might stick around on some of the surface ships with an MDC update. (honestly, it's the F-14's that make the biggest continuity headache...)
the Airforce would see a major change. first, i expect large bombers will have been reduced in role. Strategic attacks on cities can be done via orbital weapons, and the main use for 'bombers' would be bomb trucks for guided tactical munitions, much the same way the B-52's were used in Afghanistan and iraq. and even there, it's probably going to be more effective in most theatres to employ UCAV drones than large manned planes. (though the Iron Heart bomber came from somewhere...hmm.) i'd imagine that with nuclear thermal jet systems, the traditional limits on range will be gone, now it's more the endurance of the pilots rear end that limits how far you can fly.
the big change i'd expect for the air Force is the transition to an "Aerospace force", as their space defense role expands to include more than just watching for space junk and enemy ICBM's. anti-sattelite weapons, sub orbital space-planes for launching said weapons, and running the orbital weapons platforms are all going to be an Airforce job by CE. in the case of a war, job one would be to knock out the enemies orbital weapons, comm sats, spy sats, and so on...before said enemy knocks down yours. and it's all an airforce job.

In the United States, the Army and Navy are mandated by the Constitution, with the Marines being a part of the Navy, and thus are "good to go." The Air Force was authorized as a separate branch of the military on September 18, 1947 under the National Security Act of 1947. If NEMA was going to be approved, then an updated National Security Act would have to be passed by Congress & signed by the President in order to give it legitimacy and the authority to perform it's duties. Even with the forming of NEMA, which is a "Policing Force" with the capability to carry out both Defensive and Offensive military operations, there would still be a requirement and need for a standing Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force. The Four Branches may be smaller, but they will have better equipment - including Power Armor (SAMAS), Robotic Vehicles, Heavy Combat Vehicles/Tanks, and a whole slew of High Tech Weapons and Equipment that would give NEMA a run for it's money. Remember the Motto: "Smaller, Better, Stronger, Deadlier."

Of Course, the forming of the NAA and NEMA is sure to cause some amount of "Hostility" among people who already mistrust the Government. Paranoia...

Chow...

~ N

[glitterboy2098]

Remember the Motto: "Smaller, Better, Stronger, Deadlier."

and remember the addendum rediscovered everytime a group with a finite budget tries to apply that motto: "pick any two"

[glitterboy2098]

from a budget perspective, it doesn't make sense to use powered armor or robots. lets use the glitterboy, which many would assume is the automatic canidate for army-ness.
and lets compare it with a pre-rifts tank design, the Iron Heart Armaments Iron Hammer
we'll use the electric drive model.

the glitterboy is 25 million credits post-rifts. 40 million prerifts.
the Iron hammer is 6 million post, and adjusted based on the cost of the GB, 9.6 million pre-rifts.

either way, you can buy 4 Iron hammer's for the cost of 1 glitterboy.

now lets look at the capabilities. the iron hammer has about 80% of the protection of a GB.. but uses cheaper armor and is basically a big box, making it easier to repair.
the iron hammer has superior firepower. it's main gun is slightly weaker, but it has medium range missiles and secondary guns and lasers.
it has superior effective combat range. same speed in both. the GB might be nuclear powered, but it's endurance is based on how long it's user can operate it. the tank can cross 600 miles without tiring, and it's crew are sitting down and using reletively fatigue free controls.
the tank also has superior combat awareness. the GB pilot has 4-6 attacks which must be split up between sensors, weapons, movement, and while doing that the pilot must also decide how to use all his systems and how to act. the tank crew has 4-5 attacks that can be used just for driving and manuvering (driver), 4-5 that can be used for sensors and deciding what to do (tank commander), and 8-10 attacks that can be used against two seperate targets at one time (two gunners)..and it can do all this effectively simultaniously.

and that's for just 1/4 the cost of a glitterboy. but you can deploy a full platoon of 4 tanks for the cost of a single GB. the cost of a single GB squad can see the deployment of a full company of tanks...a unit that is three to four orders of magnitude more combat capable in most warfare scenarios.

and you can get tank crews alot easier than powered armor pilots. tank crews won't have bodyshape and size restrictions (PA being poorly able to adjust to overly short, overly tall, overly wide, or overly heavy people), and they're easier to train (a PA pilot has to be an expert in sensors, weapons, computers, and tactics.. a tank crew i less "jack of all trades. a gunner needs to know how to shoot his weapons. a drive needs to kno how to drive. the commander how to run sensors and use tactics....cross training is done, but they don't have to experts at all of them like a PA or robot pilot does)

tanks are thus "Better, Stronger, Deadlier." and since PA are going ot have a much higher logistical support train due ot all the specialized parts and repairs needed, they're also more conductive to "smaller"

now, the nuclear iron hammer costs about the same as a glitterboy...but doesn't gain any advantage other than removing a need to recharge every 10 hours or so, which isn't an issue for a pre-rifts military. (it is a big deal post-rifts, where there might not be a convienent powersource available every 10 hours. in pre-rifts times you have logistical support units assigned to support every deployment of troops..)

so why did NEMA use GB's instead of tanks? because tanks are not peacekeeping tools, their warfare tools. most people aren't going to be terribly reassured that they're safe if a company of tanks roll down the street. but a squad of roughly mansized, gleaming statues? much more photogenic and reassuring to people. NEMA doesn't exist to fight armies. it exists to be a police force and a counter insurgency force. which means they don't need the ability to grind entire towns under their treads..like the army has been forced to to on multiple occasions in modern history.

[Dustin Fireblade]

so why did NEMA use GB's instead of tanks? because tanks are not peacekeeping tools, their warfare tools. most people aren't going to be terribly reassured that they're safe if a company of tanks roll down the street. but a squad of roughly mansized, gleaming statues? much more photogenic and reassuring to people. NEMA doesn't exist to fight armies. it exists to be a police force and a counter insurgency force. which means they don't need the ability to grind entire towns under their treads..like the army has been forced to to on multiple occasions in modern history.

Yet the Glitterboy PA has no place as a peacekeeping unit itself. Just ask the people of Gauda Marta.

Sure the description in the CE main book says you can use a water cannon in place of the boom gun, but good grief using a 40 million PA suit to haul around a water cannon? Sorry that's just beyond stupid.


If NEMA really needed Power Armor, something like the Defender suit from Juicer Uprisings makes a lot more sense.

[glitterboy2098]

from a budget perspective, it doesn't make sense to use powered armor or robots. lets use the glitterboy, which many would assume is the automatic candidate for army-ness.
and lets compare it with a pre-rifts tank design, the Iron Heart Armaments Iron Hammer
we'll use the electric drive model.
the glitterboy is 25 million credits post-rifts. 40 million pre-rifts.
the Iron hammer is 6 million post, and adjusted based on the cost of the GB, 9.6 million pre-rifts.
either way, you can buy 4 Iron hammer's for the cost of 1 glitterboy.

Your decision to use the electric drive model skews this in your favor you also failed to include the price of the missiles "which cost extra", so lets look at the equivalent nuclear model.
The Iron Hammer (electric motor) is 6.15 million post, and adjusted based on the cost of the GB, 9.84 million pre-rifts.
The Iron Hammer (nuclear engine) is 35.15 million post, and adjusted based on the cost of the GB, 56.24 million pre-rifts.
So if you compare apples to apples, the Iron Hammer costs more than the glitterboy.

except that i'm not tring to 'compare apples to apples", i'm trying ot make a point about price vs. effectiveness. with the electric drive model, which is exactly identicle in all other respects, you can quadruple your combat power for the same price.
from a military standpoint, this makes the tank a superior option, since you can spend less, leaving more budget for other things.
think about it this way. if your comparing the F-22 raptor to the F-15SE silent eagle, would you figure out a way to artificially inflate the price of the F-15SE? or would you look at what they both do, then compare the prices, to figure out which is more capable for the price?

now lets look at the capabilities. the iron hammer has about 80% of the protection of a GB.. but uses cheaper armor and is basically a big box, making it easier to repair.
the iron hammer has superior firepower. it's main gun is slightly weaker, but it has medium range missiles and secondary guns and lasers.
it has superior effective combat range.

Since it has a radar range of 5 miles your effectively toting 10 extra large short range missiles. The main gun has less than 1/2 the range of a boom gun and less punch to boot.

as pointed out in RIFTER 51, radar is not a good system for targeting on the ground. there is a reason for the term "ground clutter" after all. targeting by ground units is more visual, in vislight or IR/thermal, usually. in vislight the GB's chrome makes it more visable than the tank (which can use camofluage), and in IR/thermal the GB's nuclear reactor's waste heat will stand out like a beacon. (not to mention it's crome would reflect IR..while most ground vehicle camo today include IR absorbing pigments to reduce IR signature)
and while the tank itself may not be able to spot for it's long range missiles, plotting in an attack using data from a forward observer is possible. the LRM's let the tank serve as an MRLS as a secondary role.
as for the main gun, leaving aside palladium's sometimes screwy range entries, it uses simple technology and is far more robust, not requiring fancy electronics to work. and the slightly weaker damage is more than made up with the option to use variant ammo. you have APFSDS, HEAT, and others. these make the weapon more flexible than the GB's big shotgun. while we don't have stats for such yet, the iron hammer's weapon should be capable of employing the same kind of cannister and NLOS rounds modern tanks currently can.

same speed in both. the GB might be nuclear powered, but it's endurance is based on how long it's user can operate it. the tank can cross 600 miles without tiring, and it's crew are sitting down and using relatively fatigue free controls.

Modern tanks are far more conformable than their predecessors but I guarantee that the crew would be VERY happy to get out of the tank, especially if they were traveling over something rougher than an improved road. Tanks also usually have to move at different rates over different terrains, usually about 3/4 speed when going cross country, 1/2 speed when going up a 20 degree grade and about 1/10 speed when moving up a sharp grade (60 degree).

and yet, glitterboys are going to be slowed down almost as much, since their two legged design is actualyl less efficent than treads for going cross country and up hills.

the tank also has superior combat awareness. the GB pilot has 4-6 attacks which must be split up between sensors, weapons, movement, and while doing that the pilot must also decide how to use all his systems and how to act. the tank crew has 4-5 attacks that can be used just for driving and maneuvering (driver), 4-5 that can be used for sensors and deciding what to do (tank commander), and 8-10 attacks that can be used against two separate targets at one time (two gunners)..and it can do all this effectively simultaneously.

If the tank is buttoned up, unless the tech is greatly improved the drivers looking through periscopes or vision blocks as is the commander (if he's not hanging out of the top or monitoring the radar), and the gunners are looking through gun sights.

actually modern tanks are moving to large multi-screen displays inside fed by cameras. these give wider fields of veiw and are intergerated into the tanks electronics and fire control. use of the actual vision blocks is left for backup only. and this is using 1990's technology. it's safe to assume that a hundrfed years later such systems will still be standard. frankly, i suspect the most lieklly is something more like the FCS's common console approach, which uses even larger screens and even more intergrated controls.

and that's for just 1/4 the cost of a glitterboy. but you can deploy a full platoon of 4 tanks for the cost of a single GB. the cost of a single GB squad can see the deployment of a full company of tanks...a unit that is three to four orders of magnitude more combat capable in most warfare scenarios.

This does not hold true if your comparing the apples to apples.

and as i've pointed out, this is a cost effectiveness and combat effectiveness comparison. for the same cost you can get 4 units with effectively the same combat effectiveness in the same basic role (anti-vehicle), thus giving superior combat capability.

and you can get tank crews alot easier than powered armor pilots. tank crews won't have body shape and size restrictions (PA being poorly able to adjust to overly short, overly tall, overly wide, or overly heavy people), and they're easier to train (a PA pilot has to be an expert in sensors, weapons, computers, and tactics.. a tank crew i less "jack of all trades. a gunner needs to know how to shoot his weapons. a drive needs to know how to drive. the commander how to run sensors and use tactics....cross training is done, but they don't have to experts at all of them like a PA or robot pilot does)

Tanks are not that roomy, and the hatches are pretty tight so I don't think your gonna find many huge tank crewmen, some tall ones but not too thick. Another item of note is that crews are cross-trained on all jobs/positions in the tank, not just in one position (though they do have a primary duty station) to insure that the tank is not a soft kill by losing one crewman.

however, on a tank you aren't restricted as much. yes you can't have many 7+ft giants, nor 4ft midgets, but anyone between 5ft and 7ft can fit. on a PA, your going ot have a very limited range of sizes. even a couple of inches off the size the suit was designed to handle is going to make adjustments very difficult. if a suit is designed for 6ft tall people, your basically looking at 5ft6in to 6ft6in rnage..not counting that physical stature factors in (thin, wide, heavyset, etc?)

tanks are thus "Better, Stronger, Deadlier." and since PA are going to have a much higher logistical support train due to all the specialized parts and repairs needed, they're also more conductive to "smaller"

Actually Iron Hammers have more logistical needs, since the tank uses main gun ammo, railgun ammo and medium range missiles, similar armor maintenance and much more maintenance in the motive system (roadwheels and tracks the weak point of any tank). A glitterboy is half as tall, half a wide, 1/5 the length and 2% the weight of the tank, so they can move and go places that the tank cannot go (and would pretty much be hell-on-two-legs in urban, forested, jungle or mountainous terrains).

in regards to "where a unit can go", a glitterboy is actually worse off than a tank. it's 1.5 tons of mass is concentrated on 6-8 square feet of area (the feet), about half that when running, not many buildings are going to be able to handle that, even in the MDC age (remeber, a GB's kick is several M.D...and running in one is like kicking the floor every few seconds.. ouch..)
it also means it's going ot have major trouble in loose soil, wet soil, mud, sand....in those it will be greatly slowed as it sinks into the ground.
not to mention the issues with firing the main gun. fewbuildings would be built strong enough to be good anchoring points, and any kind of deep or loose soil conditions are going to leave the GB on it's ass.

so GB's aren't really good in urban or extreme climate warfare.

tanks on the otherhand can easily cross loose and wet soil conditions with their treaded design, which spreads the weight out over a much larger area. they're slowed as well, but wouldn't bog down as easy, and could still fire their main gun since they have more mass to absorb the recoil.
most modern tanks, despite massing 70 tons, actually have lower ground pressure than modern cars. if it wasn't for their sheer size, they could drive into most modern buildings and fight in urban combat that way.

in regards to logistics..
the glitterboy requires specially forumlated armor (chrome) that requires careful handling ot avoid loosing t's special properties. it requires special shaping (human form, after all), which can't be done easily with standard tools. it uses many small motors (it's joints), which must be finely tuned to function properly. it's only weapon is a complex combination of magnetic coils, which even a tiny scratch on the insulation can cause to short out and cause the weapon to cease function...
a tank has two drive motors for the treads, motors to turn the turret(s) and elevate the gun(s). while it's roadwheels and treads are moving parts, they are reletively simple to maintain using standard tools and training. it's secondary guns can be removed for maintence or replacement reletively easy. it's slab sided shaped and simpler armor material allow quicker replacement of damaged sections using normal tools (and if built using modular sections like the Israeli Merkava, fairly simple to do)
tanks are simpler to maintain since they're parts don't have to be as finely tuned to function. logistically, the ammunition and parts are easier to handle too, since those procedures and storage systems are already in place. a powered armor requires a complete overhaul of the existing logistical system.

now, the nuclear iron hammer costs about the same as a glitterboy...but doesn't gain any advantage other than removing a need to recharge every 10 hours or so, which isn't an issue for a pre-rifts military. (it is a big deal post-rifts, where there might not be a convenient power source available every 10 hours. in pre-rifts times you have logistical support units assigned to support every deployment of troops..)

apples to apples again, if you could build a tank without a fuel limit like a nuclear engine, I'm sure that 95% of purchasers would spend the extra cash to cut the logistical requirements of the tank.

how many militaries plan for 30 years of constant operations? and the nuclear reactor adds issues of handling radioactive fuels, radioactive waste, requires very specialized tools and training to maintain...
in terms of cost effectiveness, it's not cost effective in pre-rifts times. nuke reactors are pretty much required for a number of things (powered armor, many aircraft, and so on), but not really needed for every ground unit.

so why did NEMA use GB's instead of tanks? because tanks are not peacekeeping tools, their warfare tools. most people aren't going to be terribly reassured that they're safe if a company of tanks roll down the street. but a squad of roughly man-sized, gleaming statues? much more photogenic and reassuring to people. NEMA doesn't exist to fight armies. it exists to be a police force and a counter insurgency force. which means they don't need the ability to grind entire towns under their treads..like the army has been forced to to on multiple occasions in modern history.

I don't think they would use tanks or large amounts of glitterboys (10ft tall gleaming robots with a essentially a cut-down tank gun). They use body armor, small arms, light vehicles, with a few light PAs and rescue oriented robots.

the NEMA PA's are actually more "heavy" units. but they problably were more rare pre-rifts. probably more common in the NEMA peacekeeping units deployed overseas..

In the CE setting, the military ground forces use a combined arms approach. In large scale battles they use heavy armored vehicles supported by robots and PAs which inturn are supported by infantry (with air support). In smaller scale battles and urban warfare they use robots and PAs with infantry support and armored vehicles used as heavy reinforcement . Patrols are primarily infantry with PAs utilized as heavy reinforcement. I use a similar approach with the CS and NGR forces in the Rifts main timeline, and variations on the tactics for other groups such as the Manistique Imperium and Ishpeming (I play the Manistique Imperium heavy on the armored vehicles with infantry support and light on the robots and PAs, Ishpeming forces use more robots and PAs with infantry support with fewer armored vehicles.

robots i'd suggest against. their combat capability compared to tanks is somewhat lower. NEMA's robots probably were built with secondary roles in disaster releif and peacekeeping. they all have full hands, which lets them serve as forklifts, cranes, and other such constructive (and construction) uses..
the army however probably focused more on tanks (iron hammer's or something similar), with a more conventional combined arms approach (infantry in IFV's or APC's, helicopters, and so on)
if they use PA's, aside from a few of the heavier types (which were probably used in the airborne units as an alternative to vehicle support), they'd more likely use something more like the exoskeleton enhanced body armor. batterypack powered, offering strength and endurance enhancement but still basically conventional infantry.
or 'if it aint broke, why fix it?'

[glitterboy2098]

AKA the soviet cold war approach to warfare, quantity over quality.

which doesn't apply here, since that quote:
A) only applied to a single weapon system...one that was at the time it was said, the best in the world
b) implies that the tanks are an inferior weapon system..which i've already pointed out isn't true in this case.

did not say anything about about using radar to target ground targets

then why bother bringing up the radar range at all then? in a surface to air mode that 5 miles is good for dealing with helicopters, and as i've pointed out, you can share information with other units, allowing them to be used in artillery and SAM modes..
and you don't need radar to target missiles, just a means to determain direction and range to the target.

A GB is able to use camouflage such as camo netting (canon: FQ) and a 10" tall silver robot is easier to hide than a 20" tall, 12" wide, 35" long tank

debateable, since the shine of the GB makes it much more noticable than a matte tank. even camonetting wouldn't help too much, since it's netting, and thus lets the underlying surface be visible. and camo that allows the GB to actually hide with any success would also prevent the anti-laser feature of its armor from functioning.

In canon their no mention of the need for heat dissipation by any nuclear engine or nuclear power source used in vehicles of any type

only because it's a common sense item that should be obvious to anyone.

Yes the chrome would reflect active IR, however a GB using passive night-vision can see a follow the IR source back to the unit using active IR and who knows if they came up with some kind of clear coating they painted on it to defeat active IR, passive IR and Thermal imaging

again, your stuck in the past. ever since the 1980's, all IR systems have been passive IR systems. no need to use IR spotlights. (the spotlights were only due to the limits of electronic processing of the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's being unable to amplify ambiet IR levels sufficently. something microchips could handle easily.)

so there is no IR source to track. unless GB's routinely try to shoot down the sun and moon.
the GB's chrome reflects IR more than a matte surface, which makes it more visible in the ambient enviroment.
the IR absorbing camo i refer to is a set of IR opaque paints that absorb heat (remember, infrared (IR) = radiated heat), and reradiates it at a lower rate, making the vehicle 'dimmer' on IR and thermal imaging.
a clear coating would not function as an IR or UV absorber in this fashion, since while the wavelengths might be invisible to our eyes, the materials able to absorb said wavelengths are not. basic optical physics.

One of the weak spots of the combat system is a poor handling of long range (over the horizon) combat. In canon there are C3 systems and linking systems, however they are usually specifically mentioned in the equipment descriptions

and rarely at that, since few post-rifts units would be able to support them. but it's safe to assume that pre-rifts, when the comm sats and GPS were still available, that these would have been available to both GB and tank, and thus levels the feild there.
except that the GB's railgun is a direct fire weapon, with no NLOS (non line of sight) capability, while the tank has missiles with over the horizon and NLOS capability.

The GB's biped locomotion allows to climb steep, uneven and broken terrain much like a person, biped motion is generally less efficient than other modes but I don't plan on changing my mode of locomotion anytime soon.

which doesn't make it superior in any fashion, just applicable to different roles. (and tanks can do steep, uneven, and broken terrain too..so the GB's ability to handle "good god thats hard" terrain isn't a major advantage if you want it as a tank replacement..)

Your still looking at multiple screens and hoping that the visual pickups going to the screens don't have too may holes in the coverage

and the GB has two little screens hooked to cameras where a persons eyes would be. minimal peripheral vision too. and that has to compete with data displays and interfaces.

tank displays are large, tied into multiple cameras covering most angles, and can show most of them simultaniously (not unlike a car's reveiw mirror set up)
and you have 3 other guys looking at the same views and communication anything they see.

sorry, but while the GB's helmet might be an impressive bit of advanced engineering, optimal it aint.

More does not mean better

true, but more of a better thing is definately better.

and remember training makes a difference, it cost 4 times as much to train the tank crew to a specific level than the GB pilot, so you can pay twice as much to train the pilot and have a more competent pilot

really. we don;t have any numbers on how hard it is to train a GB pilot, so how can you claim such a thing? a GB isn't an infantryman. he's piloting a very complex peice of machinery. if we use a modern comparison, the GB user has as many things on his plate as a fighter pilot. a fighter pilot's trainig is tough. most of the people who enter fail. tank training by comparison is much less tough, and not as many fail.

How come when someone says "urban terrain", people automatically assume inside buildings? A city in general is urban terrain, including the narrow alleys, side streets and light bridges, that a tank is likely to have trouble negotiating.

because most of the time when urban combat is discussed involving power armor, the emphasis is on going into buildings.

the ability to go down narrow alleys and over lighter bridges is an advantage, but again, that only means it fills a different role.

There is a difference between ground pressure and overall mass, a structure must be able to withstand not only the ground pressure, but must also be able to bear the total mass of the vehicle or being in question

of which i'm quite aware, and yet my statement stands. most multi-story buildings are capable of carrying 70+ tons per floor. but the tensile strength of the materials used tend to be weak against high ground pressure.

there is a huge difference between running and kicking

not from the floors point of veiw. in a kick you place all your force (and a good amount of your mass) behind one foot.
running, your putting alot of force and all of your mass on one leg.

looking at the artwork of the GB, my initial estimate way too large. more like 3 square feet. 500 kg per square foot standing, with closer to a ton per square foot when just walking. running would add to this the issues of the kinetic impact of the foot hitting the floor.

and i would point out that a tank the size and mass of a Ironhammer could just drive right though most SDC buildings. so issues of manuvering room are only an issue if you have really hindering rules of engagement..

Complete conjecture, since we have no clue as to the maintenance requirements and or the ability and capabilities of shaping the materials used in there construction.

but we can apply common sense. a tank has it's engine and two drive motors, one per tread. various unpowered roadwheels. a few motors for turret traverse and aiming. and it's weapons. it's armor is largely flat and in big sections. it's onboard electronics tie in cameras and sensors to large display screens, adding in targeting info for weapons. (something most modern laptops can handle)

a GB's armor is curved, and in small sections. it needs at least one motor for each joint in the body. neck, torso, two shoulders, two hip joints, two elbows, two knees, two ankles, two wrists, and 30 in the hands (15 per hand). so at minimum 44. these motors must be strong (based on the known PS of the suit) and compact..which isn't a feature that lends itself to durability.
these motos must be coordinated by a complex computer program connecting pressure sensors all over the inside of the inner suit (to read movements) to the actions of the motors (to recreate the movements in real time). and this does not yet include weapon (a guass gun with dozens to hundreds of magnetic coils that have to activate in precise sequence, all within a split second), or the computers needed to tie the sensors and weapons into the small helmet mounted display..in such a way that the user can still see. this interface must be controlled through voice and eye tracking controls, which is a complex set of microphones and cameras governed by software. the GB's powerplant is a compact nuclear reactor. which means it has a reactor, a cooling system and heat excahnger, power generator, power regulation, and reactor safety systems..all crammed into something roughly the size and mass of a backpack. this is not a recipe for ease of maintence, even if the reactor aspect didn't require special radiation protection tools and specialized training..

a tank is a simpler system than a suit of power armor of any kind. (which is why we developed viable tanks in the 1910's, and we're still failing to build viable power armor in the 2010's...)

and it's an automatic that the more complex a system, the more difficult, time consuming, resource intensive, and expensive the maintenece is.

I have to disagree, all those moving parts, engines, transmissions, drive wheels, and road wheels have bearings seals and gaskets, there is NOTHING simple about modern tanks

simple compared to powered armor. a GB still needs gaskets and lubrication and such..but it's got almost two orders of magnitude more parts involved.. and all of them are small, hard to get to, and have to be finely tuned to function.

All the maintenance you mentioned except for track tightening and secondary weapon cleaning or replacement and reloading/refueling require depot level maintenance, most tanks end up being totally rebuilt about 1x per decade at the state-side depot

and a GB would require such depot level maintence on an almost weekly basis, since it has to be far more finely tuned, and has so many more parts.

[glitterboy2098]

now before you get the idea i'm against the use of glitterboys by the pre-rifts army, let me explain where i do see it used.

first, you have to realize that the GB isn't a tank, and as i've shown above, in any attempt to use it like one a real tank is going to kick the GB's ass. even using older technology, the tank will have equal or better firepower, equivilent armor, and better tactical and strategic endurance. (remember, a GB's user still tires, albiet at 10% the usual rate. 3 hours of intense physical activity [like combat] will leave the GB pilot unable to do much until he gets some rest. going for 6 hours or more of running and fighting and the GB pilot is be at a -4 to parry and initiative..not a good position. the tank crew on the otherhand isn't doing anything physically intense, just running consoles. so they could fight the full ten hours non stop. they'd not be much mentally afterwards, but they could do it. and unlike the GB, a tank can keep moving full tilt while firing it's guns.. so tactically the GB has shorter legs, and strategically a GB needs a transport to get across long distances...unlike the tank)


so what role does the GB fill? for a unit of infantry, it's a Mobile gun system. a well armored portable anti-tank gun, able to go most of the same places they can. in this it's better than something like a Styker MGS or the old ontos, which offered the firepower infantry need, and better mobility than the old recoilless rifles. since advances in armor and defenses made man portable ATGM's less effective, a reversion to a non-interceptable cannon is logical.

where the GB really shines is with the Airborne units, like the 101st and 82nd airborne divisions. tanks are too big and heavy to drop out of an airplane or carry in a helicopter (and attempts to build one that could, like the M551 sheridan generally failed), but airborne units need anti-tank firepower to do their jobs. currently ATGM's fill the role reasonably well, but you need tank level firepower with MDC targets. the GB is a great anti-tank unit, and at 1.5 tons, is light enough to be airdropped. a C-130 could carry a full squad of 11, plus a handful of regular troops or supply pallets.

odds are the army would have non-airborne powered armor units as well, and in those units the GB would fill the same role it fills in the infantry units. mobile gun system. IMO, the army would likely have a number of GB chasis based PA's. a "general trooper" type with a MG style railgun, a "support" type with mortar or missiles, etc. power armor offers abilities regualr infantry and convnetioanl vehicles can't match, if your willing ot pay the price for it.

personally, i'd like to see a "conventionally" armored GB in army use. about 300-400 MDC mainbody, no chrome, but otherwise the same weapon and stats. that should drop the cost by a few million credits, making it more reasonable to see in numbers.


NEMA uses the GB, IMO, because it has peacekeeping duties. as a peacekeeper, they need anti-tank firepower to deal with armored vehicles that crop up..but don't need full tanks, which can ruin a good hearts and minds campaign when used correctly (and are not very useful when use incorrectly). since IMO NEMA got far more funding than it's size usually would warrant, they'd be able to afford the more expensive "cutting edge" toys.

[glitterboy2098]

AKA the soviet cold war approach to warfare, quantity over quality.

which doesn't apply here, since that quote:
A) only applied to a single weapon system...one that was at the time it was said, the best in the world
b) implies that the tanks are an inferior weapon system..which i've already pointed out isn't true in this case.

I was implying that you chose the inferior tank and not the inferior system between tanks or PA. Tanks should fill one niche on the battle field, PAs should fill another.

and yet, you've argued for a PA unit to fill the main mobile anti-vehicle role of the army, which is one a tank works best at.

and i would point out that "inferioritiy" is not defined by technology but by success at the role. in in the role of doing a tanks job, the Iron hammer is far superior to the GB.

did not say anything about about using radar to target ground targets

then why bother bringing up the radar range at all then? in a surface to air mode that 5 miles is good for dealing with helicopters, and as i've pointed out, you can share information with other units, allowing them to be used in artillery and SAM modes..
and you don't need radar to target missiles, just a means to determine direction and range to the target.

Because using the base rule set you actually have to target what you fire a missile at (since most missile are not self guided) unless your unit has a specific ability for NLOS attacks.

"horsepucky" to quote Major Potter. using the base ruleset an NLOS attack is just a -4 to strike. your just loosing the advantage of the missiles homing system, in favor of a pre-programmed flight pattern. thus, -4 to strike.

A GB is able to use camouflage such as camo netting (canon: FQ) and a 10" tall silver robot is easier to hide than a 20" tall, 12" wide, 35" long tank

debatable, since the shine of the GB makes it much more noticeable than a matte tank. even camo-netting wouldn't help too much, since it's netting, and thus lets the underlying surface be visible. and camo that allows the GB to actually hide with any success would also prevent the anti-laser feature of its armor from functioning.

Camo netting is actually quite effective at covering reflective surfaces. Besides breakup the silhouette, modern camouflage netting also functions to break up IR and includes a fine wire mesh in the netting allowing it to work effectively against surface scanning radar (such as air to ground radar used on air support and strike fighters).

camo netting is good at reducing the visibility of an object by reducing it's Albedo, or brightness reletive ot the surroundings. but this is a reletive function, with the end result heavily dependant on the original visability of the object. a GB, being extremely visable due to it's high albedo, is still going ot be more visable than a tank which starts at a much lower visibility before the netting.

In canon their no mention of the need for heat dissipation by any nuclear engine or nuclear power source used in vehicles of any type

only because it's a common sense item that should be obvious to anyone.

Actually if the nuclear engine or power source is 100% efficient it would not give off heat. Fission reactors give off heat because they are not 100% efficient, there is also the possibility that the nuclear power source is a fusion engine which might also change the your expectation of a heat bloom. Another thing to think about it the current trend in exhaust cooling to cut down on thermal signature, many military vehicles already use insulation and baffles systems to cool their exhaust to a level closer to ambient temperature.

again, "horsepucky"
nuclear reactors produce three things as the result of a fission reaction. gamma rays, shortlived fission byproducts, and kinetic energy. fission byproducts produce heat as they break down, gamma rays are absorbed by the sheilding and moderators, and the kinetic energy is absorbed by the reactor itself. both of the last create heat. power is produced by running coolant through the reactor to absorb that heat, with the coolant then run through a generator as part of the cycle that transfers the heat away so the coolant can be reused. the heat has to be dumped outside the reactor for it to function, or it builds up in the reactor and melts down like at chernobyl. there are secondary energy producing methods involving theromvoltaics (which generate power directly as the result of the heat transfer), and thermophotovoltaics (which use the photons produced by the hot materials to generate power using special "solar panels"), but both of those require heat to be present and transferred to function. it is impossible to extract useful energy from a fission reactor without heat being a key component of the method.

and fusion reactors aren't any better. fusion reactions only occur at very specific high pressures and tempratures. since the reaction itself generates gamma rays, kinetic energy, and thermal energy, and the first two turn into heat as the result of the design of the reactor, fusion reactors have far more thermal energy to dump than fission systems. and while a fusion reactor can extract electrical power directly from the plasma using a magnetohydrodynamic process, that process doesn't eleminate the heat. fusion reactor designs must include a coolant system to absorb the excess heat, and include a thermal based generating system as part of the process of eliminating that heat as a way to obtain additional power output. so fusion reactors will also have to dump their heat to the outside.

as for exhuast cooling, yes there are major improvements made in that regard, but there is the issue of magnitude. an internal combustion engine puts out exhust in the hundred degree range or so. easily dealt with using a system to kmix outside air into the flow. and such systems still show up as being higher than the background air temprature.
jet turbines, like those on planes, helicopters, and the M1, put out exhusts in the 800+ degree range. these systems also use systems to reduce the IR signature, usually by mixing outside air into the flow, but those systems only reduce the signature, not eliminate it. they still show up as much higher than background.

a nuclear reactor requires outside air to flow over its radiator to function. IR reduction could be employed, but the heat output for a fission reactor is greater than that of a jet engine. so it will still show up as much higher than the background.

compare this to a battery powered electric drive. the only heat sources are the electromagnatic drive engines, and those are extermely low heat, even at high speeds. if using chemical batteries the batteries might show up, but those are lower heat than the drive engines.

Yes the chrome would reflect active IR, however a GB using passive night-vision can see a follow the IR source back to the unit using active IR and who knows if they came up with some kind of clear coating they painted on it to defeat active IR, passive IR and Thermal imaging

again, your stuck in the past. ever since the 1980's, all IR systems have been passive IR systems. no need to use IR spotlights. (the spotlights were only due to the limits of electronic processing of the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's being unable to amplify ambient IR levels sufficiently. something microchips could handle easily.)

Passive systems which utilize image intensification (commonly referred to as night vision), only work if there are "natural" sources of light available (moonlight is not needed with modern systems, but stars or decent cloud glow will do), in the middle of nowhere with heavy cloud cover or in fog, smoke, rain or snow the system don't work as well. "Normal" camouflage and camouflage techniques work effectively against these systems since the operate in the visual to near infrared spectrum. Military night-vision systems all have a passive and active mode (passive mode is used when ever possible, but the active mode is good for areas without source like in unlit rooms, or for reading a map), the IR that night vision goggles use when switched to active mode is not thermal heat, it is at the low end emitted infrared light (the last units I used were AN/PVS-7 and AN/PVS-10). These systems commonly use green video displays.

the goggles function with a frequency range that includes the IR spectrum. in recent years there have been many advances in materials that when applied to vehicles, alter its IR reflectiveness and output in such ways as to reduce the signature using both the Near IR range of NVG and thermal imageing systems. these materials are essentually a kind of "filter" that absorbs the energy from the vehicle and reradiates it at less visible wavelengths.

Passive systems which utilize long-wavelength infrared imaging (commonly referred to as Thermographic), work day or night regardless to lighting sources, however they work best when the ambient temperature is cool with little humidity, and have reduced capability through dense fog, heavy rain or thick smoke (especially "hot" smoke), but are unaffected by light rain, mist, fog. They work on the principle that all materials at a temperature higher than 0 K emit some level of detectable infrared (thermal) energy, this approach allows the viewer to see variations in temperature in what is observed including residual heat and heat blooms. Since they don't operate in the visual spectrum so "Normal" camouflage and camouflage techniques are ineffective against these systems, however specially treated clothing can effectively hide someone from them and materials sometimes have different optical properties (glass and Plexiglas are opaque, a reflective surface appears either hot or cold depending on what is reflected by them), exact color determination is almost impossible. Military versions of these systems use gray video displays that can be set either hot is light and cold is dark or hot is dark and cold is light. Non-military versions may use false color to display the same information. My unit had a limited number of thermographic scopes that weren't standard issue at the time.

and as i've pointed out, there have been alot of advancements in terms of what "normal" camofluage can do in recent years. "normal camo" now modifies the signature of the vehicle in the infrared spectrum nowadays.

one can only assume that in 90 years such approaches will have been refined further.

Passive systems which utilize mid-wavelength infrared imaging (commonly referred to as FLIR), work day or night regardless to lighting sources, have fewer problems with ambient temperature or humidity and but still have reduced capability through dense fog, heavy rain or thick smoke. They work on the principle the same principle as a thermographic systems but don't detect the thermal energy (no hot engines, heat blooms, etc.) ALL materials at a temperature higher than 0 K emit some level of detectable infrared (thermal) energy. Once again these systems don't operate in the visual spectrum so "Normal" camouflage and camouflage techniques are ineffective against these systems, however specially treated clothing can effectively hide someone from them and materials sometimes have different optical properties (glass and Plexiglas are opaque, a reflective surface usually appears neutral on the visual scale, but may appear bright or dim dependent on what is reflected by them), exact color determination is almost impossible. Military versions of these systems use gray, green or red video displays that can be set either light thin objects light and dense thick objects dark or light thin objects dark and dense thick objects light. Non-military versions usually use gray display screen.

yes, but modern camo materials modify the intensity of the signature so that even in the IR wavelengths used by NVG's and thermal imagers, the vehicle is harder to detect and blends more easily into the background.

unliek a GB, which has highly reflective surfaces. since most military lasers are likely to be IR and UV wavelngths as a means to avoid issues with battlefeild atmospheric conditions, it's reflectivity would have to extend into those ranges as well. which means that in addition to it's own IR signature as the reasult of internal heat, it will reflect the ambient IR, making it much more obvious. and since you can't build a coating that suppresses the IR signature without ruining the reflective protection of the armor, there is no way to get around this.

so there is no IR source to track. unless GB's routinely try to shoot down the sun and moon.
the GB's chrome reflects IR more than a matte surface, which makes it more visible in the ambient environment.
the IR absorbing camo i refer to is a set of IR opaque paints that absorb heat (remember, infrared (IR) = radiated heat), and reradiates it at a lower rate, making the vehicle 'dimmer' on IR and thermal imaging.
a clear coating would not function as an IR or UV absorber in this fashion, since while the wavelengths might be invisible to our eyes, the materials able to absorb said wavelengths are not. basic optical physics.

Infrared radiation is popularly known as "heat" or sometimes known as "heat radiation", since many people attribute all radiant heating to infrared light and/or all infrared radiation to heating. This is a widespread misconception, since light and electromagnetic waves of any frequency will heat surfaces that absorb them. This can be easily recognized by thinking about a closed car without tinted windows. Glass blocks IR (since it's opaque to it) but lets the visual spectrum through which is absorbed by the interior of the car heating the inside of the car. The temperature of car will continue to climb within the car since the heat inside the car can't radiate out through the glass. Layers of a optically clear coatings can alter the one or all the properties of the materials they are used on. Remember ε = ρ = 1 - τ + α (emissivity = absorptivity = 1 - reflectivity - transmissivity). An IR/thermal camo "paint" does not necessarily require visible pigmentation, IR/thermal camouflage paints utilize pigmentation to allow them to be utilized as visual camouflage on the equipment used. A laser may pass right through a clear "lacquer" reflecting off the surface of the armor or the coating might be damaged by the weapon strike but the armor underneath would still reflect the laser.

actually, when i said Heat = IR, i meant that for tempratures most common on the battlefeild, the wavelengths of light produced by the radiation of heat energy will occur in the infrared portion of the spectrum, since that is one of the lowest energy wavelengths. unless the object is roughly 400+ degrees, the photons produced will bel ow energy, meaning in the IR wavelengths. 400+ degrees and it starts to produce light in the visible spectrum, starting in red and moving up the spectrum.

as for IR absorbing paints, as i've pointed out above, most battlefeild lasers will be either IR (lower power and less effected by battlefeild conditions) or UV (high power and less effected by battlefeild conditions). any pigment that absorbs IR would thus ruin the Chrome armors anti-laser protection if applied.

One of the weak spots of the combat system is a poor handling of long range (over the horizon) combat. In canon there are C3 systems and linking systems, however they are usually specifically mentioned in the equipment descriptions

and rarely at that, since few post-rifts units would be able to support them. but it's safe to assume that pre-rifts, when the comm sats and GPS were still available, that these would have been available to both GB and tank, and thus levels the field there.
except that the GB's railgun is a direct fire weapon, with no NLOS (non line of sight) capability, while the tank has missiles with over the horizon and NLOS capability.

Missile systems require a LOS unless your using some sort of self-guided munition with a forward observer, or a forward observer with a target designator of some sort (like an AN/PAQ-1).

to get NLOS ability with missiles only really requires a timer (which is an integral part of computerized systems), and an inertial compass (bog standard for missiles even today).
if you know your target's location, you can plot in a course as a set of directional instructions and durations. worst case scenario is you program it to go at a specific angle for a specific time, and use a ballistic trajectory like conventional artillery.

the GB's railgun could in theory be employed to fire ballistic arcs for NLOS ability, but with the speeds of the projectile s and shotgun effect, the result would have a very big minimum range and do minimal damage to a single target.

The GB's biped locomotion allows to climb steep, uneven and broken terrain much like a person, biped motion is generally less efficient than other modes but I don't plan on changing my mode of locomotion anytime soon.

which doesn't make it superior in any fashion, just applicable to different roles. (and tanks can do steep, uneven, and broken terrain too..so the GB's ability to handle "good god that's hard" terrain isn't a major advantage if you want it as a tank replacement..)

Tanks are unable to hand more than a 40% side slope, can get stuck if it bottoms out, can roll over in relatively mild terrain if the driver does not negotiate it correctly, can't climb a vertical barrier taller than the bottom of the lead road wheel and tend to flip nose first if they go slowly down a vertical drop greater than one third their length.
http://tanks.torensma.net/index.php?pag ... icle.id=8&
http://xmb.stuffucanuse.com/xmb/viewthread.php?tid=5448

human forms can rarely handle a 40 degree slope with any speed, unlike tanks which can take them at a good clip. a ditch which bottoms out a tank will stop a human for quite a bit of time, slowing him to a crawl. a humn form can't effectively handle vertical obstacles higher than their own height, and cross ones lower than that will stop them for a sizeable amount of time. humans tend to fall down if they drop more than 2/3rds their own height as well, and getting back up stops them for a sizeable amount of time.

and on open terrain even the smallest protusions or depressions can cause thm to fall over unless great care is taken in the traverse.

Your still looking at multiple screens and hoping that the visual pickups going to the screens don't have too may holes in the coverage

and the GB has two little screens hooked to cameras where a persons eyes would be. minimal peripheral vision too. and that has to compete with data displays and interfaces.

tank displays are large, tied into multiple cameras covering most angles, and can show most of them simultaneously (not unlike a car's review mirror set up)
and you have 3 other guys looking at the same views and communication anything they see.

sorry, but while the GB's helmet might be an impressive bit of advanced engineering, optimal it ain't.

In the current Abrams M1A2 (SEP) The commander has six fixed periscopes that provide an all-round 360-degree view. The independent thermal viewer (ITV) also provides the commander with independent, stabilized day and night vision which rotatable to provide a 360-degree view. The gunner's day and night vision and a optical backup system, both bore sighted with the main gun. The loader has a rotating day and night vision system (rate of rotation is equal to the rotation of the turret), the driver has a day and night system which locked in line with the center line of the tank (forward facing only). Here's some pictures of the interior of the Abrams, I would assume they would have better external pickups than this in the future.
(drivers station) http://www.tankmastergunner.com/images/ ... tation.jpg
(gunners station) http://news.webshots.com/photo/10343422 ... 4941eyJwro
(loaders station) http://news.webshots.com/photo/10343423 ... 4941YEsSdl
(composite of interior: gunner station on right, center is the breech, left is loader station) http://www.portierramaryaire.com/imagen ... orreta.jpg
(commanders station) http://www.tankmastergunner.com/images/ ... tation.jpg

the GB's helmet is two cameras on the outside in the location of the "eyes", tied into two viewscreens over the pilots eyes. which means that it has only a single limited rotation "sensor turret".

while you'd already shown that a modern tank has 4+, and can look multiple directions at once.
and i would again point out that in the time of the GB, additional cameras and screens would be applied. the US army is already preparing ot transition to a screen set up based on technology developed for the now cancelled FCS project (whose console technology had already been completed and proven back in 2004), sweden is already transitioning to a digital system, and to expect tanks built seven decades from now to still be relying on physical periscopes is silly, especially when better systems already exist.

and remember training makes a difference, it cost 4 times as much to train the tank crew to a specific level than the GB pilot, so you can pay twice as much to train the pilot and have a more competent pilot

really. we don't have any numbers on how hard it is to train a GB pilot, so how can you claim such a thing? a GB isn't an infantryman. he's piloting a very complex piece of machinery. if we use a modern comparison, the GB user has as many things on his plate as a fighter pilot. a fighter pilot's training is tough. most of the people who enter fail. tank training by comparison is much less tough, and not as many fail.

I agree that we don't have the hard numbers on the difficulty of the training, and we really don't know how complex or simple the controls are, but if we judge the level of difficulty by the looking at the base skill level of the respective skills the piloting of PAs and robots are as difficult to pilot as to drive a car (60% base), while driving a tank is as more difficult (40% base).

or more likely that the skill reflects the level of competency one must aquire to be able to use such a system. thus making tanks easier to use.

How come when someone says "urban terrain", people automatically assume inside buildings? A city in general is urban terrain, including the narrow alleys, side streets and light bridges, that a tank is likely to have trouble negotiating.

because most of the time when urban combat is discussed involving power armor, the emphasis is on going into buildings.

the ability to go down narrow alleys and over lighter bridges is an advantage, but again, that only means it fills a different role.

The idea goes further if the you think about areas where tanks have difficulty like dense forest, narrow canyons, or underground locations, etc. Different units for different roles.

to quote one of my ex-cavalry freinds "when faced with jungle and heavy forest, just drive straight through".

and i agree on "different units for different roles", but the main mobile anti-vehicle units always going ot be a tank, not a PA. because tanks do that role better and cheaper.

There is a difference between ground pressure and overall mass, a structure must be able to withstand not only the ground pressure, but must also be able to bear the total mass of the vehicle or being in question

of which I'm quite aware, and yet my statement stands. most multi-story buildings are capable of carrying 70+ tons per floor. but the tensile strength of the materials used tend to be weak against high ground pressure.

There are three important measures of a materials strength, tensile strength (against tension or pulling forces {<==|==>}), shear strength (against twisting forces and non-perpendicular forces), and compressive strength (against compression or pushing forces {==>|<==}). The load bearing (live load) ability of a single family residential floor is usually around 40 psf, while the load bearing (live load) ability of a office floor is usually around 50 psf. A 100 lb woman in a pair of high heels has a ground pressure of around 25 psi (100/4) when standing, that translates to about 3600 psf (25*144), I have yet to see my GF drop through the floor of either structure. Ground pressure is less important to the determining if a structure can bear a weight, what matters more is the total weight of the object.

now have said office woman running at 6x her normal top speed, and see if the added kinetic energy has an effect. a GB running across a floor, even at a normal human 4-5mph, is like a jackhammer being taken to the floor. lots of energy being put onto a small area, by an object that strieks the floor several times a second.

ramp that up to 10mph+ and things will start to fail.

there is a huge difference between running and kicking

not from the floors point of view. in a kick you place all your force (and a good amount of your mass) behind one foot.
running, your putting a lot of force and all of your mass on one leg.

What your miss understanding is the difference between the action of running and kicking (or stomping). When running you do exert more pressure on the impacting foot against the running surface than when walking, but when running (which is a rolling foot and leg action to propel you forward) your not attempting to strike through the surface, like when attempting to kick (or stomp) an object.

when running, your not really carefully stopping your feet as they hit the ground, your basically impacting the ground before moving on. and i would point out that for a GB, which lacks an ankle for the rolling foot action, the difference is even less. a GB running would be like Frankenstein's monster running. "thud thud thud" with no ankle movement, since it doesn't have ankles. (just a knees and a slighlty flexible toe area)

Complete conjecture, since we have no clue as to the maintenance requirements and or the ability and capabilities of shaping the materials used in there construction.

but we can apply common sense. a tank has it's engine and two drive motors, one per tread. various unpowered roadwheels. a few motors for turret traverse and aiming. and it's weapons. it's armor is largely flat and in big sections. it's onboard electronics tie in cameras and sensors to large display screens, adding in targeting info for weapons. (something most modern laptops can handle)

Two main drive motors and transmissions for movement which require bearings, seals and lubrication, the road wheels are unpowered but are mounted on pivots attached to the torsion bars mounted to the hull (both points would require the same as the drive wheels. You have at least one likely two motors and transmissions for turret rotation and another set for elevation. Appropriate controls systems for controlling all the motors and transmissions, power lines for the motors, environmental and climate controls, motion compensator, etc.

The armor of tanks comes in a number of different types besides the old stand by of rolled homogeneous armor (RHA) plates, to include spaced armor, perforated armor, reactive armor (RA), nonexplosive reactive armor (NERA), slat armor and Chobham (composite), often two or more of these types are utilized together to provide improved armor protection. Modern tank's primary armor is generally manufactured in preformed armor sections which are attached (welded) together to a rigid frame surrounding an interior shell/compartment, secondary armor is generally attached to anchor points on the primary armor which coincide with the primary armors anchor points to provide extra protection to venerable locations. Modern tank armor doesn't come in a sheet format that you cut to fit (unless your thinking of improvised secondary armor).

or like with the isreali kasag modular armor system, manufactured in flat plates, not welded, and easily replacable in the feild. when the Merkava MkIV's came out with Chobam armor, they were even able ot do a feild refit of the new plates onto the older MkIII's, which had used composite armor.
their new Namer APC uses the same system, being based on a MkIV hull, and actualyl carries more armor than a MkIV, as a result of mass savings from dropping the turret and gun. they just had to mount thicker plates.

as for "cut to fit", yes those have to be done at a factory, but those sections are fairly large, flat, and standardized.
a GB's armor on the otherhand probably does come in sections, but it';s many complex curves make not onloy replacing armor more difficult, but producing it and storing more difficult as well. and then you add in the issues with how they employ special materials which have to handles carefully to avoid ruining the anti-laser features.

a GB's armor is curved, and in small sections. it needs at least one motor for each joint in the body. neck, torso, two shoulders, two hip joints, two elbows, two knees, two ankles, two wrists, and 30 in the hands (15 per hand). so at minimum 44. these motors must be strong (based on the known PS of the suit) and compact..which isn't a feature that lends itself to durability.

Small sections of armor are easier to replace since each preformed piece is smaller and easier to handle. We don't know if they use for actuation, it could be electronic servos, hydraulics or something like electroactive polymers (artificial muscles {myomers}) or one of a host of other types, but I think it might be a combination of the technologies. If they used electrical motors I pretty sure that the large motors required to provide the motive power necessary to move 70 tons of tank would have a shorter lifespan than the ones used to move a 1.2 ton GB.

not really. a tanks bigger size allows it to use more robust components, more optimized for long life and reduced wear. the GB's micro-systems would have to be optimized for small size and low mass, which means less durable designs.

and if the GB uses electroactive polymers for it's main motive servos, you then have issues of chemical interactions, thermal tolerances, and other factors that materials that are largely organic have greater issues with.

these motors must be coordinated by a complex computer program connecting pressure sensors all over the inside of the inner suit (to read movements) to the actions of the motors (to recreate the movements in real time). and this does not yet include weapon (a gauss gun with dozens to hundreds of magnetic coils that have to activate in precise sequence, all within a split second), or the computers needed to tie the sensors and weapons into the small helmet mounted display..in such a way that the user can still see. this interface must be controlled through voice and eye tracking controls, which is a complex set of microphones and cameras governed by software. the GB's powerplant is a compact nuclear reactor. which means it has a reactor, a cooling system and heat exchanger, power generator, power regulation, and reactor safety systems..all crammed into something roughly the size and mass of a backpack. this is not a recipe for ease of maintenance, even if the reactor aspect didn't require special radiation protection tools and specialized training..

Once again we do not know how the technology or mechanics of the suit or how it works, anymore than than than Wilbur and Orville would have if they were looking at a pictures of an F-15.

except through common sense and looking at existing predecessor technologies already in existance. early power armor predecessors are already in development. like Lockheed's HULC, Cyberdyne's Hal-2000, and various DARPA programs.

so it's not the wright brothers looking at an F-15, it's more like Chuck yeager looking at one.

a tank is a simpler system than a suit of power armor of any kind. (which is why we developed viable tanks in the 1910's, and we're still failing to build viable power armor in the 2010's...)

The difference is that armored vehicles have a far longer history than the idea of PA or piloted robotic vehicles. Tanks can draw their lineage from medieval siege equipment like siege towers and covered rams, war wagons, DaVinci's armor car (tank), Tachanka and finally the armor plated tractors which were the prototypes of the original English tanks.

true. but thats only because tanks and the systems preceddign them are simpler systems to get functional. they were less relaint on computers just to move, and could be built with early industrial technology, unlike PA which require mid to late digital age technology.

and it's an automatic that the more complex a system, the more difficult, time consuming, resource intensive, and expensive the maintenance is.

Tanks are just as complex and just as if not more expensive to field, they are just larger in scale and use a technology that is now currently well understood, just as the technology used in the GB might be well understood in it's time frame.

never under estimate economies of scale. since tanks are an existing system with existing doctrines, they're going ot be more common than completely new systems with no pre-existing doctrines like PA. and while tanks are complex systems, their complexities are ones we've long had methods and tools in place to handle. PA's liek the GB are reltively new developments even in the Chaos Earth era, and given the more technologically complex components required, will require additional support over all, and in a time of being "new", won't have the economy of scale to reduce those requirements.

I have to disagree, all those moving parts, engines, transmissions, drive wheels, and road wheels have bearings seals and gaskets, there is NOTHING simple about modern tanks

simple compared to powered armor. a GB still needs gaskets and lubrication and such..but it's got almost two orders of magnitude more parts involved.. and all of them are small, hard to get to, and have to be finely tuned to function.

Smaller advanced systems are generally sealed systems, depending on the technology and mechanical systems used they might require no more maintenance than the your automobile since they weight less than an automobile.
sealed systems just mean that when something does break, you have to replace alot more thaqn just that part. and having owned a "modern" automobile, if they require as much care and maintence, good god how do they ever get them working right? modern cars are some of the most cranky, tempermental and maintence intensive things i've every driven. they're built like swiss watches..and anything can cause them to stop working right. give me a nice older tech brick built to keep running with half it's parts broken any day.

All the maintenance you mentioned except for track tightening and secondary weapon cleaning or replacement and reloading/refueling require depot level maintenance, most tanks end up being totally rebuilt about 1x per decade at the state-side depot

and a GB would require such depot level maintenance on an almost weekly basis, since it has to be far more finely tuned, and has so many more parts.

think of the amount of moving parts in your automobile, a modern tank has about an order of magnitude greater number of parts, many of larger scales than your automobile.

and a GB has an order of magnitude more parts than a tank, many of them so small you need a jewlers tools to work on.

In closing:
In respect to your choice of a Iron Heart Armaments product, it states in the text section discussing Iron Heart Armaments that the reason that their greatest weakness is it's lack of sophisticated computer and manufacturing facilities, that their factories cannot produce the micro-circuitry, nano-technology and nuclear devices necessary for robots/power armor, that is why they construct tanks, planes and ships that use comparatively low technology.

In respect to your choice of the Iron Hammer, no where in it's description does it state that it has any advanced sensor systems, except for the previously mentioned short range radar. This is likely a caused by the companies inability to produce advanced electronics equipment and if added would add considerable cost to the unit.

which means that it isn't a complete look at what the pre-rifts version was? certainly true. but adding a few better sensors, some battlefeild networking, and a better dispaly system for them wouldn't increase the cost 4x. hell, adding such systems today don't bump the costs up that much, and in CE/RIFTS computers are several orders of magnitude more capable for the cost.

In respect to your choice of the electric model of the Iron Hammer, it does not state how much power the railguns draw when used (the Vulcan laser does include a battery entry with a number of blasts listed). I'm guessing that they would use some appreciable level of power when used and would draw from the vehicle battery system decreasing the available "mileage" available, unless they provide an independent power source like the Vulcan laser (this would be the simplest way to resolve it).

the iron hammer does mention adding bateries for the railguns, so if there isn't a specified amount, it's safe to assume that the batterypacks provide enough power to fire the railguns for their full burst #'s.

Like I stated previously I don't doubt the use of armored vehicles like tanks and APCs at the in the golden age, the time of CE and into Rifts, I just don't see NEMA as having a large amount of organic units of GBs or heavy Robots. But, I also use the Silver Eagle SAMAS as NEMA specific version (attach their railguns when necessary for missions and don't have MM launchers), while the army uses a version with a similar load out to the original CS SAMAS (same armor stats as the Silver Eagle but uses a different non-chrome material.

NEMA no. but we were talking about the US ARMY. they would have large amounts of armored vehicles in use, since not onyl are they much larger (and thus have to stretch their budget further), but have to be able to fight open feild and cross country engagements. the Ironhammer or whatever it was called pre-rifts, with even basic battlefeild networking updates ala current times, would fit that need more than a GB.

[Grell]

Getting players to co-operate as closely as a vehicle crew needs to would be like herding cats.

TRUTH.

[Beatmeclever]

I always figured that the military would have even more powerful designs and equipment, but that at some point (with the final collapse into the dark ages) the soldiers had been sent in to assault some great evil and were all either wiped out or drawn into some hellish dimension from which they were unable to escape. NEMA designs and equipment survived because they were not present at this Armageddon.

It could be possible that one rare piece of equipment might exist by the time of the Rifts, but that is not very likely due to the level of oblivion met by the military.

This would allow you, Jason Richards, to create mecha and equipment that is more advanced than what we see in Rifts and yet not violate (too badly) the established canon.

$0.02

[tmikesecrist3]

Actually, the CG is now governed by homeland security unless called into war service.

In any case, border security is clearly stated to be a mission of NEMA, I think.

I thought is was the treasury dept.

[Grell]

Actually, the CG is now governed by homeland security unless called into war service.

In any case, border security is clearly stated to be a mission of NEMA, I think.

I thought is was the treasury dept.

I believe the Secret Service falls under the Treasury Dept.

As to NEMA, I'd love to see some source material for their Coastal Defense mission.

[PhellaOne]

According to the book Nema replaced NSA the FBI and I think the national guard not sure on the guard.

The National Guard is the reserve component of the U.S. Army.

That isn't accurate. The National Guard is a state asset controlled by that state's Governor, while the Army Reserve is the reserve component of the U.S. Army. I can understand the confusion due to current usage, but that's only because the U.S. Army can call upon the state-level assets to bolster the Regular/Active Army in times of need. Because of the shortage in manpower during the last few years, the National Guard has seen almost as many deployments as the Regular and Reserve Army. Airborne! All the way!! Scouts out!!!

[PhellaOne]

Honestly, it's best not to try and throw too much logic into NEMA's role and mission. If you look too deeply into why a domestic security organization that mostly replaced the CIA and FBI and such has mobile cannons with Boom Guns stationed across the U.S., you might go crosseyed.

I agree. I don't think that the role of the CG (circa 2012 AND in the real world) would be the same as a fictional CG (circa 2098). One of the things I can remember Kevin saying many cycles ago was the concept of feasibility. If Jason can explain the role of NEMA, the Coast Guard, and all the other various agencies at the time of the Cataclysm, more power to you. In my opinion, as long as Jason's"artistic liberty" doesn't cause feasibility issues, I say "more power to you!" It sounds like he has a pretty good grasp of their current function/purpose, and until he proves different I'll trust his "artistic liberty". Be down, bro! Can't wait to see the final result.

[Grell]

Honestly, it's best not to try and throw too much logic into NEMA's role and mission. If you look too deeply into why a domestic security organization that mostly replaced the CIA and FBI and such has mobile cannons with Boom Guns stationed across the U.S., you might go crosseyed.

But I'm addicted to logic! Is there a 12 step program for that?

[PhellaOne]

Honestly, it's best not to try and throw too much logic into NEMA's role and mission. If you look too deeply into why a domestic security organization that mostly replaced the CIA and FBI and such has mobile cannons with Boom Guns stationed across the U.S., you might go crosseyed.

But I'm addicted to logic! Is there a 12 step program for that?

I don't think so. But there IS a 12 sided die. Take it from another logic-obsessed player, just roll some dice for a little while and hum to yourself "It's a game. Logic is secondary." It never really cures you, but it helps get you through the next session.

[Grell]

I love my d12 almost as much as my d30 of miscellaneous purpose.

[Shawn Merrow]

Honestly, it's best not to try and throw too much logic into NEMA's role and mission. If you look too deeply into why a domestic security organization that mostly replaced the CIA and FBI and such has mobile cannons with Boom Guns stationed across the U.S., you might go crosseyed.

But I'm addicted to logic! Is there a 12 step program for that?

I think it mainly involves alcohol and watching Syfy Channel movies, may also involve watching some Jersey Shore.

[Grell]

Honestly, it's best not to try and throw too much logic into NEMA's role and mission. If you look too deeply into why a domestic security organization that mostly replaced the CIA and FBI and such has mobile cannons with Boom Guns stationed across the U.S., you might go crosseyed.

But I'm addicted to logic! Is there a 12 step program for that?

I think it mainly involves alcohol and watching Syfy Channel movies, may also involve watching some Jersey Shore.

I think Snooki WAS the monster in a couple of Syfy channel movies...

[Killer Cyborg]

No Dead Boy armor for the Army. At least, not directly. Remember that there are 300 years between the Chaos Earth RPG and the Rifts RPG. While all based on the same tech, the application would have to be different. Were I to have written the CERPG, honestly, I wouldn't have simply duplicated the CS gear and put a NEMA sticker on it. I don't think that really adds up and, to be honest it's a little lazy, not to mention boring. After all, you HAVE the stats for the CS gear, so I want to give you something new..

Agreed.

[Grell]

Well, anytime you want to give me something new, my inbox is always open! I could always use some innovative thoughts on Golden Age US Army battle armors.