Quote:
In terms of combat endurance and mobility, TSFs are superior to AFVs and IFVs, on account of being able to fly and move fast. Destroyers aside, the 36mm caseless round is sufficiently powerful for fighting BETA; the problem is that it's all to easy to run dry and get swarmed as you're trying to reload. Note the Imperial Royal Guard at Kyoto, who were killed as they were reloading.
|
Vehicles are cheaper, faster to produce compared to a TSF. through they might not be able to endure or be as mobile as compared to a TSF. They are still an important role and the backbone of many armies. They are not meant for frontal confrontations. Mainly establishing a base of fire/ flanking fires.
An M2 Bradley has 900 rounds for its chaingun and up to 7 TOW missles. Resupply can be in the form of humvees and jeeps. making resupply faster.
These combat groups would have rotations to ensure ammo and fuel resupply.
Anyone thought of super big size claymores? TSFs place it along wings/flanks of enemy advance. It would surely make the Destroyer class's frontal armour useless. Due to fire coming from the side.
Tactics wise i might depend on Hannibal's tactics used in Cannae. Some mods in it. Units at the tip would be in a fighting retreat. Leapfrogging whatever.Under artillery cover. The wings would attack the flanks/rear spread around wreck mayhem. Hmmm what do you guys think of mounted barret 50cals or whatnot on fast vehicles. LSV travel around 110km/h why not a ferrari or a lambo. These units would attack sides of the herd and slowing frontal advance by destroyer class. by targeting legs casuing a hold up or a bottleneck in the advance.