Hello, I would like to expand on the GMS rules in DirtSide to include
technologies that are being developed today.
OTH GMS Currently a GMS can be fired over the horizon for an infantry or other
unit to designate the target for. Therefore, I believe that we should combine
the Forward Observer rules with the GMS rules. A Forward Observer may
designate a target by placing a GMS marker face down when he designates. The
next player then acts. If the targeted unit is still in LOS from the FO then
any one unit with GMSs may fire a volley at the target(s). If you assume that
the FO can designate more than one unit is five minutes, then he can attack
all of the elements in a unit (platoon) instead of just one vehicle.
Attack Drones Currently the US is building self guided autonomous attack
units. Therefore, here is my proposal. A unit may carry Attack Drones. Attack
Drone Launchers take up six spaces on the vehicle and cost double the value
of their corresponding GMS/Hs. Basic 60, Enhanced 90, Superior 120.
The Drone is launched in a direction by being placed at a point within 40
inches of the launcher, including over the horizon/terrain. If along
the way it would encounter an enemy unit (Like going down a highway in the
woods and meeting up with little red riding GEV) it may make an attack.
Otherwise, at its intended point it may attack any enemy unit within 8 inches
that are in LOS. Attack Drones are supbject to Area Defense, LAD and point
Defense as well as ECM, just like any other GMS. Let me know what you think.
Phil P.
Gort, Klaatu barada nikto!
> You wrote:
> OTH GMS
I saw on someone's home page rules for indirect fire GMSs. Didn't the old
British Swingfire have something like this capability?
> Attack Drones are supbject to Area Defense, LAD and point
Validities as per GMS, drawing five chits? I kinda don't like it 'coz it
allows attacking hidden units or units no one can see. I'll buy that you know
generally where your enemy is, but not precise enough to
target them without eye-on the objective. YMMV.
> In a message dated 98-07-03 19:11:09 EDT, Phil writes:
<< Attack Drones Currently the US is building self guided autonomous attack
units. Therefore, here is my proposal. A unit may carry Attack Drones. Attack
Drone Launchers take up six spaces on the vehicle and cost double the value
of their corresponding GMS/Hs. Basic 60, Enhanced 90, Superior 120.
The Drone is launched in a direction by being placed at a point within 40
inches of the launcher, including over the horizon/terrain. If along
the way it would encounter an enemy unit (Like going down a highway in the
woods and meeting up with little red riding GEV) it may make an attack.
Otherwise, at its intended point it may attack any enemy unit within 8 inches
that are in LOS. Attack Drones are supbject to Area Defense, LAD and point
Defense as well as ECM, just like any other GMS. >>
Urk - that's pretty powerful. I'd allow it as a high-tech option, but
not as standard equipment. That would throw the whole system out of whack. I
like
the OTH GMS as a Superior-level technology, but the attack drone, I
would
reserve that for my 'Advanced'-level tech
(Primitive/Basic/Enhanced/Superior/Advanced in some house rules of
mine).
Noah
> You wrote:
> I think you could put the swingfire launcher in one position, and run
> heavy, never used in action, and thrown away in favour of newer
I knew it was one of those sounds-good-on-paper-but-kinda-flakey-in-
practice ideas getting tossed around during the 60s and 70s, along with
kneeling suspensions and through-the-gun ATGMs. :)
> In a message dated 98-07-03 23:52:24 EDT, John A. writes:
<< kneeling suspensions >>
Whazzat?
Noah
> In a message dated 98-07-03 23:52:24 EDT, John A. writes:
<< through-the-gun ATGMs >>
What was wrong with those things? We dropped 'em like a hot potato after the
Sheridan, but the Russians used them up thru the T-90 (boring old tank
that it
is).
Noah
> You wrote:
> Eww, the sheridan? They were given to the national guard almost as
Nah, the Guard wouldn't take 'em. They equipped ACRs and DivCavSquadrons
during the 70s and stayed on regular service up 'till last year with our
Airborne division. Now their only function is at the training centers with
fiberglass Visual Modification kits so they
look like T-72s.
> You wrote:
> What was wrong with those things? We dropped 'em like a hot potato
Less penetration than a Sabot round, especially against modern
composite/reactive armors. Russians use them because their poor
quality control doesn't allow them to produce quality munitions, but guided
missles don't take much sophistication. US's experience was that the firing of
a standard round would generally knock out the optics to guide the missle.
> You wrote:
> << kneeling suspensions >>
The MBT-70 project was going to be the new-and-improved MBT to replace
the M-60. Joint project with US and Germans, who have somewhat
different ideas about tank design philosophy in first place. Was
overly complex--kneeling suspension is just one example. Supposed to
allow the body of the tank to be raised and lowered by, IIRC, 18 inches. Duh!
It also was to be armed with the 152mm system used on the Sheridan, plus an
autoloader. Spiralled way out of control cost
and weight-wise. Eventually scrapped, and the US went to what would
become the Abrams and the Germans produced a new-and-improved version
of their Leopard.
> On 3 Jul 98 at 22:00, John Atkinson wrote:
> You wrote:
I think you could put the swingfire launcher in one position, and run cables
to a control some distance away, and fire it from there. I think the intention
was to prevent giving away your true position by following the smoke trails
back. I seem to remember that you could get swingfire in double packs, they
launched from a box as I vaguely remember, were rather big, heavy, never used
in action, and thrown away in favour of newer systems.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> On 3 Jul 98 at 22:48, John Atkinson wrote:
> I knew it was one of those sounds-good-on-paper-but-kinda-flakey-in-
Eww, the sheridan? They were given to the national guard almost as soon as
they were produced weren't they?
Then again, we totally refitted two nuclear submarines at the cost of god
knows how many scores of millions, and as soon as they were finished, scrapped
them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Richard Slattery wrote:
True, but the Russians seem to be fans of the idea. (I've heard a
story that they like them because of deficiencies in their fire-control
systems-- Without an ATGM round, their tanks just aren't as accurate as
ours at long range.) In addition, the U.S. is working on some type of guided
round for the 120mm cannon, but I think it's a guided round, rather then a
true missile.
> On Sat, 4 Jul 1998 Sabmason@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 98-07-03 23:52:24 EDT, John A. writes:
It's a common modification for armor units that are 98% Catholic...;)
In a message dated 98-07-04 18:45:16 EDT, Jim F.writes:
<< > << kneeling suspensions >>
> Whazzat?
It's a common modification for armor units that are 98% Catholic...;)
> [quoted text omitted]
ROTFL
Whew, a new SG2 action: Genuflect.
> On 3 Jul 98 at 23:33, John Atkinson wrote:
> You wrote:
Erk, how did the thing ever get ordered and produced if it was that useless?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> In a message dated 98-07-04 20:23:06 EDT, Richard S. writes:
<< Erk, how did the thing ever get ordered and produced if it was that
useless? >>
Welcome to the US procurement system; occasioanlly we get the gems everybody
hates (M1 Abrams, C5 Galaxy, Los Angeles - class subs) and we get the
lemons everybody loves (Sheridan, Original Bradley, Sgt. York DIVADS). I could
go
on....
Noah
> Richard Slattery wrote:
> Erk, how did the thing ever get ordered and produced if it was that
Since it was air dropplable it remained in the US inventory for many years.
Primarily in the 82d airborne. The fact that the tank was in our inventory for
about thirty years should be your first indicator that it was not the lemon
some would have you believe. The tank was robust, reliable, and air droppable.
(though I've seen three burn in over the years. Was it the kind of tank you
would want to go toe to toe with an M1A1 or a T80? No. Could it provide
reliable support to an airborne battalion? You bet.
> You wrote:
> Erk, how did the thing ever get ordered and produced if it was that
Two words: Robert McNamara.
> You wrote:
> tank was robust, reliable, >and air droppable. (though I've seen
That would be like the truck a buddy of mine was telling me about that ended
up with an average height of 18" after it's chutes failed to open? Ewwwww...
> would want to go toe to toe with an M1A1 or a T80? No. Could it
But God help the crewman that thought it was a tank and tried to take a hit
from, say, an RPG or something. As a tank it was a POS. When used as such in
Vietnam it ended up with really bad reputation. As a fire support vehicle for
airborne units that aren't supposed to drop into Panzer Corps assembly areas
(Field Marshal Montgomery's opinion to the contrary!), it's better than
anything else that was available.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> That would be like the truck a buddy of mine was telling me about that
Axtually, they curtailled air drops for most of the tanks career and went to
LAPES, (Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System) That's awhere a C150 flies 5
feet off the ground and parachutes "extract" the vehicle out the back and teh
tank slides along teh ground on a pallet until it stops. If something goes
wrong it starts to tumble like a little toy. Saw one go cartwheeling of into
the woods and kill a few joes. Quite frightening. But that wasn't as bad as
teh second time. It was during a live fire
demonstration for westpoint/rotc and various visiting dignitaries down
at OP5 at Ft Bragg. First they had a bn jump right into a live fire exrcize.
Once the DZ was secure and teh heavy drops came in, here comes the C30s with
the M551. The C130 swoops in but something went wrong and it "belly flopped"
in creating a huge fireball. The tank actually tumbled right through the wreck
(see them sheridens are actually impervious to exploding
C130s! <g>) What a mess. All crew dead of course.
> But God help the crewman that thought it was a tank and tried to take
You logic is funny to me. First off, No tank crewman goes "Oh theres an enemy
let me ride out his hit". He tries to avoid them, armor of not. Second, god
help the crewman of ANY vehicle that takes a hit from an RPG.
The 82d's job is not designed to drop into tank assembly areas. It functions
in certain terrain and using certain tactical methods. I'm not
going to get into the specifics of the triple AD(Airborne Anti-Armor
defense). But it entails a shitload of TOW launchers. One parachute bn has at
it's disposal, 18 TOW vehicles. Plus Brigade had two additional TOW companies
which were doled out to the battalions as necessary.
Each bn (that's how we usually deployed though bde ops were not uncommon), has
only one platoon of sheridans attached. They operated with the rifle companies
as infantry support. Sur ethey had the AT capability but that was primarily
the realm of the TOW platoons. We lihed having that mosnter 152mm gun arounds
which could pretty much level a bunker or a building in one blow. SO you are
most definately confusing mission capabilities here.
> On Fri, 3 Jul 1998, John Atkinson wrote:
> Nah, the Guard wouldn't take 'em. They equipped ACRs and
So they did finally scrap those things in the 82nd. But what's the
Americans using for an air-droppable tank nowadays?
> In a message dated 98-07-05 18:02:47 EDT, cquin writes:
<< So they did finally scrap those things in the 82nd. But what's the
Americans using for an air-droppable tank nowadays? >>
As I remember, something called the (X)m-8 Armored Gun System is in late
tryouts or early production & delivery. Basically a light tans, with 3 levels
of armor (lightest is airdroppable). The gun is a 105 of some variety,
apparently with a pretty good anti-tank capability, and HE for it's main
mission. Was supposed to have an autoloader, as the Amry finally went to
someone with experience in autoloaders - the US Navy. It's apparently a
takeoff of the high-speed autoloader from the 76.2mm gun used on most
USN
ships (which I think is a liscence-built Oto-Melara system...)
It looks pretty cool, but the armor is light, even with the add-on
packs, and it's fast. Not an MBT, but that's not it's job. A pretty good light
tank.
Noah
In a message dated 98-07-05 19:35:04 EDT, you write:
<< As I remember, something called the (X)m-8 Armored Gun System is in
late tryouts or early production & delivery. Basically a light tans, with 3
levels of armor (lightest is airdroppable). The gun is a 105 of some variety,
apparently with a pretty good anti-tank capability, and HE for it's
main mission. Was supposed to have an autoloader, as the Amry finally went to
someone with experience in autoloaders - the US Navy. It's apparently
a
takeoff of the high-speed autoloader from the 76.2mm gun used on most
USN
ships (which I think is a liscence-built Oto-Melara system...)
It looks pretty cool, but the armor is light, even with the add-on
packs, and it's fast. Not an MBT, but that's not it's job. A pretty good light
tank.
Noah
> [quoted text omitted]
This vehicle, however, was recently cancelled. It may be restored in another
budget, for for the time being the program is dead.
> You wrote:
> So they did finally scrap those things in the 82nd. But what's the
Same thing everyone except the Russians are. Nothing. TOW Hummers.
> Chen-Song Qin wrote:
> So they did finally scrap those things in the 82nd. But what's the
I believe they're using LAVs. I haven't beento Bragg in a few years but
last time I was there they were a bunch in the 4/68th's motor pool.