> At 11:52 PM 05/08/98 -0500, John Atkinson wrote:
I agree that today's visual systems are a great leap over the past, and being
buttened up may not be as detramentle as it was duiring WWII. However, I think
that small arms fire on a armoured vehicle still has the potential to suppres
by affecting the crews morale. Concentrated fire by small arms could signal
the possibility of bigger and nastier projectiles comming onto target, or even
bring on the fear of close action by nearby enemy infantry. A crew member
inside a tank will not be 100% sure of where or how close the fire is comming
while buttened up in their vehicle. This brings on the dreaded notion of the
"Unknown Factor" which is when you just do not know what could happen to you
next. Just something for thought.
> At 09:37 PM 06/08/98 -0500, John Atkinson wrote:
> just do not know >what could happen to you next. Just something for
> through the villiage putting 90mm rounds into every structure. This
You are right, I too seriously doubt that fire from a single automatic rifle
would phase a tank crew. I actually meant the combined fire of a section,
along with support weapons, or perhaps just a few support weapons
(MG's).
Although I did mention "tank" this was meant to encompass any armoured
vehicle. I don't know how fearful armoured vehicle crews will be of infantry
in the furure. They may have all sorts of interesting devices to prevent enemy
infantry from getting on, or even near the vehicle. I would think that, as
with any tech advance in weapons, that the infantry would still pose a
possible threat if close to the vehicle.
A suppressed Infantry unit in SG2 cannot fire or do anything until it removes
suppression. Suppressed vehicles should be able to fire and move (I would
think). Can they? I can't recall. If they can't move or fire, does this make
entire sense? I was under the impression a suppression for a vehicle meant it
buttoned up, but all that really does is limit the ability to spot on behalf
of the vehicle crew (less field of view). Most rifles and MGs and such present
no direct threat, and I thought tankers train to fight buttoned up.
Somebody want to clear me up on how this works for vehicles? Private email on
the matter is fine, or a reply to the list if you think it topical.
Tom.
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay Software Specialist Police Communications Systems Software
Kinetics Ltd. 66 Iber Road, Stittsville Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 4009
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Software Kinetics' Web Page:
http://www.softwarekinetics.ca or http://www.sofkin.ca or
SKL Daemons Softball Web Page:
http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/softhp.htm
**************************************************/
Hi Tom
OK, hate to do this but "the rules say" that suppression only effects
vehicles in the mount/dismount situation.
If we want to rationlise this it makes sense that firing is via Firecon and
not effected by being closed down.
Let's face it, we are assuming that the weapon systems of 2185 are pretty
guchi and video gamish. So watching fall of shot for a main gun with the Mk
One Eyeball is not going to be all that important.
Now if you want to fire the main weapon without the Firecon then go ahead and
use the d4 in place of Firecon!!
Well that's my take,
Cheers,
Owen G
[quoted original message omitted]
Hi Tom, not too confusing here.
Vehicle suppression only prevents Crew/Infantry mount/dismount and
firing of external mount weapons.
Owen G
Tom Replies:
I'm not taking this private because my mail to you bounced (couldn't find your
domain apparently....the wonder (NOT) of DNS....). Question: Does suppression
penalize vehicle firing in SG2? It definitely does in most old style WW2 games
(smaller view perspective for targeting, disturbance of incoming (if
ineffective) fire).
Tom.
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay Software Specialist Police Communications Systems Software
Kinetics Ltd. 66 Iber Road, Stittsville Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 4009
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Software Kinetics' Web Page:
http://www.softwarekinetics.ca or http://www.sofkin.ca or
SKL Daemons Softball Web Page:
http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/softhp.htm
**************************************************/
> You wrote:
> Let's face it, we are assuming that the weapon systems of 2185 are
> From talking to the tankers and ex-tankers I know, all of them claim
[snip]
> A crew member inside a tank will not be 100% sure of where or how
Is there much chance that the small arms fire can damage the sensors that a
buttoned up crew depend on? On another note, I gather that although the fire
control functions on todays armor do fine with the crew buttoned up, they
still lose a great deal of "peripheral vision."
[quoted original message omitted]
[quoted original message omitted]
Well, so far I don't think we need to. I can't remember offhand if there are
spotting penalties for a buttoned vehicle or not. There probably should be.
Mk1 Eyeball with a full range of view is a great thing, and backed up by good
sensors, it's even better. But buttoned up still restricts somewhat. The only
vehicle house rules I'm working on are a
'Travel' mode, to give some of the 'all-out sprint' ability that was
discussed earlier. So far it seems to work - they can move a long way,
but are pretty vulnerable and restricted. BTW, the First Time Suppressed
result seems to be accurate. A good anecdotal book on tank tactics in Vietnam
is 'Tank Sergeant', by Ralph Zumbro. Seems that they took small arms fire a
lot, and would regularly
'scratch each other's backs'; spray their coax MGs at each other to clear off
enemy infantry. When the small arms first opened up in a battle, they would be
nervous, expecting the RPGs to come any second. After a few minutes, it wasn't
a big deal, because the enemy would have used them immediately if they had
them. This was, however, very lightly or
un-escorted tanks fighting irregular light infantry. But it's a good
read.
Noah
[quoted original message omitted]
> You wrote:
> I think that small arms fire on a armoured vehicle still has the
Of course, that's assuming he even realizes he's being shot at. David Drake's
account of the Battle of Snoul, in Cambodia 1970 is interesting. After 14.5mm
machine gun fire drove off the ACAVs and
Sheridans, the Squadron Commander sent in his M-48 company, which drove
through the villiage putting 90mm rounds into every structure. This either
killed or drove off all the PAVN troops. According to Drake, the noise of the
engines was loud enough that tankers, who went in buttoned up, did not even
hear the impact of the machine gun rounds. It all depends on situation. If a
tank is in the middle of a gunfight with enemy tanks, he won't give a rat's
ass about a flake shooting at
him with an AK-74, since the other bloke's tanks could kill him, and
the AK can't. If he's point on a convoy with the TC hanging out to cupola when
some suicidal idiot opens up with an AK, then he might notice. Of course, IMHO
anyone who has nothing better to shoot at a tank with than his personal weapon
should try something more constructive, like hiding or running away.