[AD] Dirtside Rules Question

3 posts ยท Sep 29 1999 to Sep 30 1999

From: Los <los@c...>

Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:59:04 -0700

Subject: Re:[AD] Dirtside Rules Question

> Andrew Martin wrote:

> Adrian pointed out:

I suspect there are some pretty logical operational and financial reasons why
they're not going with the ADATs. I think that if both Tanks and A/C
have more or less the same thick skin and are as difficult to hit, then it
makes sense. But if tanks still go slower and are thicker requiring special
greater penetrating warheads than aerospace vehicles, then I'd have to look at
the costing analysis before OKing such a thing (speaking as if I'm a
procurement director at
DOD.)

Right now a TOW round costs between $6-8K. Stinger rounds are3 or 4
times as much. (Not to mention the launcher) If I can kill tanks cheaper with
specialty rounds, then I'd stick with those. But then again the decision
should be purely an economic one since technically it is has already possible
for some time to build a missile round that will kill both vehicles. Heck the
SWEDEs have employed the RB70 optical guided missile system for some time.
(But one requires much less penetration and much more guidance). In fact TOW
rounds can be fired at slow moving targets and have on occasionally been used
to kill helicopters.

So anyway I guess my point is, it's not really a matter of can it be done, but
more can it be done in a cost effective manner and if not why bother? Of
course those question are pretty much beyond the scope of your average
dirtside game so there's nothing wrong in going for it.

HOWEVER! Now that I'm thinking about Area defense. If I was playing it, I
would degrade the use of a dual purpose weapon unless it was a dedicated asset
as part of a seamless area defense system. (It's about early warning and
tragetting more than can this individual weapon feasible hit an airborne
target.) That means I have eight vehicles all Avengers (making up a name) with
this dual
ground/air
capable system. I'll dedicate one of the vehicles to Area defense while using
the others for whatever fire task I'm performing on the ground. Vehicle eight
is tied into the area defense network. Sure if a ground threat pops up that
isn't handled by somebody else, the TC can override the network and engage,
(at a lower efficiency?) but at that point he's out of the net and can't help
with air defense. Likewise vehicles with this dual system can engage air
targets that pop up but at less efficiency also. Now when you are talking
missile armed vehicles which generally have more severe ammo portage porblems
than slug throwers, you have to maximize the quality of your shots.

Based on where current AD doctrine is and is continuing to go, your area
defense network (The GZG term for AD) relies on complete and seamless
integration to maintain it's top efficiency.

SO over your WAN (datalinked either by satcom, FM, whatever), all parts of the
area defense network are automatically linked and share the same data at once.
This includes data from EW radars in the sky or orbital surveillance. When the
threat is detected the network always decides what is the best asset to use in
order to eliminate the threat. It's almost like an automated phalanx system
(using missiles or guns) on a large level.

The system requires a very robust, redundant, and rock solid network to work
right. Of course individual assets can always override the net to engage
targets that have somehow slipped through or popped up unexpectedly. Now in a
dual system this is doubly important since the ground commander wants to
concentrate his resources on the ground battle (Obviously it's integrated with
the air battle too) and as a TC I'd hate to be in the middle of a ground
engagement and all the sudden lose control of my dual launcher to engage and
airborne threat.

Keep in mind that even if a dual capacble system is more expensive (and
doesn't do each subtask as well as a dedicated system) it still might be teh
way to go on smaller ops where portage is a porbelm. Again going back to the
dual purpose
gunship/slick "aliens" scenario we talked about last week. I.e UN
marines, they don't work in larger units such as other power's troops so
they're weapons are mre expensive but dual purpose?

Anyway I'm just sort of thinking out loud.

From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@t...>

Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 22:08:09 +0100

Subject: Re: Re:[AD] Dirtside Rules Question

> Los wrote:

> technically it is has already possible for some time to build

The RB70 able to kill tanks as well? Probably an old tank in the
side/rear, or IFV/APC (provided neither has upgraded or add-on armour),
but there's no way that warhead can take out a modern tank. We use
STRIX and BILL for long-range AT work instead, but they can't hit
'copters or airplanes :-/

> In fact TOW rounds can be fired at slow

...and the Javelin is supposedly designed to do so as well, though I suspect
you know a lot more than that one than I do.

The thoughts on dual purpose units look fairly solid. We'd need smaller AA
tracking systems and more robust datanets, but they'll come sooner
or later. Probably sooner :-/

Later,

From: Los <los@c...>

Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 17:44:59 -0400

Subject: Re: [AD] Dirtside Rules Question

> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

> Los wrote:

The RB70 can be use dto kill light skinned vehicles and APCs in a pinch. The
point is it has the same guidance system as a TOW optically
sighted/wire guided.