I've been thinking about the rules for infantry firing at vehicles in DS II.
Currently, there are two types of weapons used: GMS/L teams, and
regular infantry firing IAVR's. Each has it's advantages and disadvantages.
The GMS has greater range and firepower, but it can be spoofed by ECM, and it
must
be carried by a specialized team/element. The IAVR cannot be spoofed,
and any element may fire it, but it has very limited range anf destructive
power vs. armor. I begin to think it would be great if there was something
that was a compromise between the two. And I realized there is.
Let's say that the GMS roughly equates to the futuristic version of a TOW, or
Hellfire, or Dragon (Depending on whether it's H or L). And according to the
book, the IAVR equates to the modern LAW or RPG.
But there's a whole class of weapon left out of the occasion. What about
larget direct-fire infantry-fired rockets and recoilless systems, like
the
SMAW or B-300 or Carl Gustav?
Thus I propose the SAVR (Support Anti-Vehicle Rocket). It combines some
of
the best and worst of both GMS/L teams AND IAVR's
Like a GMS/L, a SAVR must be carried by a dedicated team, which can only
carry small arms for self-defense in addition to their SAVR. SAVR's use
the same validities as IAVR's, but they draw 3 chits instead of 2, and they
have an effective range of 16" (Much greater than an IAVR, but nothing
compared
to the 36" of a GMS/L. The advantage is that SAVR's are not succeptible
to
ECM and ADS/PDS fire like GMS' are.)
In general, I'm pretty happy with these stats. But if someone can suggest a
more viable range, that is the one area I'm most open to tweaking this house
rule.
In a message dated 3/10/00 8:30:34 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> bbilderback@hotmail.com writes:
> Like a GMS/L, a SAVR must be carried by a dedicated team, which can
Because the round for the new weapon would (presumably) be bigger than an
IAVR, I would suggest that PDS/ADS be able to shoot at it (give the
defending
vehicle an additional die or dice based upon the PDS/ADS). Unless we're
assuming its basically a rocket-propelled hypervelocity kinetic
penetrator and not a HEAT weapon...
What about APFC systems? Would they have any effect vs the SAVR?
The range is way too long in my opinion (which is, as usual, worth what you
paid for it). It appears that you are proposing an UNGUIDED
shoulder-launched missile system (otherwise we're talking GMS) and each
inch is 100 meters IIRC. So 16 inch range is pretty darn far for an unguided
man-pack weapon. How 'bout letting it shoot 8 inches (double IAVR
range)
based upon the PSB that the fire control/targetting system is better
than the IAVR's? That's still a pretty long shot against a presumably moving
target (the range of the SMAW is somewhere around 300 meters, right?).
Rob (who left the Corps before the SMAW came into use)
----Original Message Follows----
From: RWHofrich@aol.com
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: DS II Infantry vs vehicles
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 21:54:02 EST
Because the round for the new weapon would (presumably) be bigger than an
IAVR, I would suggest that PDS/ADS be able to shoot at it (give the
defending
vehicle an additional die or dice based upon the PDS/ADS). Unless we're
assuming its basically a rocket-propelled hypervelocity kinetic
penetrator and not a HEAT weapon...
You have a point there. however, since I envisioned this class of weapon
encompassing several slightly different approaches, one could argue for a
DIMINISHED capability to stop it with PDS/ADS, since it is moving more
quickly than a guided weapon that would need to adjust it's flight path on
the way in, instead of completely disregarding the PDS/ADS, as I first
proposed.
What about APFC systems? Would they have any effect vs the SAVR?
As I stated in the first post, it's validities would be the same as for
IAVR's, just with more chits, so yes, APFC systems would reduce SAVR
validities to Yellow only.
The range is way too long in my opinion (which is, as usual, worth what you
paid for it). It appears that you are proposing an UNGUIDED
shoulder-launched missile system (otherwise we're talking GMS) and each
inch is 100 meters IIRC. So 16 inch range is pretty darn far for an unguided
man-pack weapon.
Not quite shoulder-fired, more like Tripod mounted. Perhaps shoulder,
but not as easily as say a LAW or RPG, we're talking significantly larger
launchers and rounds than IAVR's. Thuse the specialist element requirement.
How 'bout letting it shoot 8 inches (double IAVR range)
based upon the PSB that the fire control/targetting system is better
than the IAVR's? That's still a pretty long shot against a presumably moving
target (the range of the SMAW is somewhere around 300 meters, right?).
Rob (who left the Corps before the SMAW came into use)
You have a point again, gosh darn you! But let's assume that propellant
technology has advanced, as well as the targeting package on the firing tube.
I'll give you that 16 is probably too far, but I'm not so sure about only 8.
How about another comprmise, say 10"? That's exactly 1 klick, whick would make
it very impressive by modern standards, but still not
over-powerful on a DSII battlefield.
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> Let's say that the GMS roughly equates to the futuristic version of a
Including LAWs like the AT4/M136 :-/
> But there's a whole class of weapon left out of the occasion. What
You mean "Javelin or Kestrel or MBT-LAW", not "SMAW or B-300 or Carl
Gustav" - and even with this change, only Javelin approaches the range
you're suggesting; Kestrel and MBT-LAW only having a range of 4-6" in
DSII. And all three are vulnerable to both ECM (to varying degrees) and point
defence.
The Carl Gustav firing anti-armour rounds (751 or 551 HEAT, or possibly
the HEDP) is a multiple-shot IAVR. The range could *possibly* be
extended to 6" in DSII, but that's it - while the warhead is powerful
enough to warrant more than 2 chits, the hit probability, particularly
against moving targets, doesn't. If you want 3-4 damage chits (the 751
round in particular would probably rate 4), you have to introduce a
to-hit roll for this "IAVR".
What the Carl Gustav *can* do, but which the others can't and which your
suggestion completely ignores, is act like an SAW (firing 441 frag
rounds or the APM beehive used by the US Rangers), ultra-light HEF (441
frag rounds or HEDP in HE mode at long range - up to ~1 mile or so) and
lay illumination or smoke (again up to ~1 mile away). You'll have to bring the
right ammo for it though (use the artillery ammo game mechanics for this).
Note that the effective range of a Carl Gustav is *much* longer when
firing indirectly at area targets (the smoke/illum/HE effects described
above) - a mile, or even somewhat longer for some types of ammo - than
the effective range of the direct-fire anti-armour rounds (up to about
5-600 meters - further than that you'll have to be very good, or very
lucky, to hit the target).
Increasing the velocity of the round won't improve this range very much
for an unguided round - you need it to be at least inertially guided,
ie able to correct its course if disturbed by wind etc.
I don't remember the effective range of the SMAW off hand, but the warhead and
hit probabilities aren't that different from those of our products.
Mind you, *none* of the CG rounds go fast enough to be unstoppable by point
defence, and neither do any other HEAT missiles. Heck, even *KE*
rounds (Mach 4-5) aren't fast enough for today's AFV point defence
systems to track and lock on to, though I don't think any current such system
is able to actually deflect or disrupt KE rounds. No doubt that will change in
the future.
Regards,
Argh. Some clarifications to my previous post:
> Mind you, *none* of the CG rounds go fast enough to be unstoppable by
Should be "...any other HEAT munitions". The CG rounds aren't missiles,
they're only grenades or RPGs :-/
> Heck, even *KE*
Should of course be "aren't too fast for today's AFV point defence systems to
track and lock on to" <sigh>
Regards,
Uncle
You can put down Jane's now... I'm pretty well stumped. However, in your last
few lines I see my possible salvation. I know you meant that defensice systems
will improve, but so will the weapons. Remember we are playing "in the
future." Perhaps technology has advanced far enough to give these weapons
greater range. I still think a heavier answer to the IAVR, with
somewhat improved range, and better killing power, would be attractive,
since their diurect-fire nature removes at least ECM from the equation.
As
for the ADP/PDS question, I'll concede that they probably will have to
be capable of defending against this new weapon. I'm glad I threw this to the
group before playing it, hopefully it will survive, but in a truly playable
form. And your comments on the capabilities of the Carl Gustav, and beehive
rounds, has lead me to the following idea, evolved from the SAVR:
Support Anti-Vehicle Rocket (SAVR):
Though called a rocket, the SAVR concept includes small recoilless rifle
systems as well as rocket-propelled munitions. They are carried by
specialist elements.
SAVR's have a range of 8 inches.
When a SAVR fires on a vehicle, place a missile chit next to the vehicle as
for a GMS attack, and resolve all ADS fire as normal. if the SAVR round gets
past any ADS defenses, resolve the attack Vs. the vehicles Signature and
PDS, not vs. it's ECM and PDS.
If the SAVR hits, draw 3 damage chits. Validities are the same as for IAVR's.
Because SAVR's have larger warheads than IAVR's, they can fire special
anti-personnel rounds which allow them to act as limited APSW's. In
ranged infantry firefights, treat SAVR's as APSW's with a range of only 6".
The cost of a SAVR element is based on the targeting system of the SAVR (not
guidance, once the SAVR is fired it's going in a straight line): With Basic
targeting, cost=30 With Enhanced, Cost=40 With Superior, Cost=50
(I basically costed them as a combination GMS/L AND APSW element).
Brian B
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: Re: DS II Infantry vs vehicles
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 10:21:48 +0100
No doubt that will change in the future.
Regards,
> Because the round for the new weapon would (presumably) be bigger than
My bet is that it would be an improved recoiless type rifle firing a round
with a plasma warhead (or something). It would probably move as quickly as an
IVAR round and not be a WHOLE lot bigger. I would nix the PDS and ADS and
simply allow reactive armor to effect the round.
But you know what opinions are worth:)
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> Uncle
The parts about Carl Gustav, MBT-LAW and AT4 weren't taken from Jane's.
Developing those systems is my day-time job, which gives me a fair idea
of their limitations and development potentials :-/
Some of the parts about Javelin and the rest of our competitors came from
Jane's, though <g>
> However, in your last few lines I see my possible salvation. I know
Some parts of them will improve. Other parts won't, unless they're so
high-tech they can violate what we currently percieve as physical laws.
Newton's laws in particular.
> Remember we are playing "in
> weapons greater range. I still think a heavier answer to the IAVR,
You can get improved killing power, yes - but you can quite reasonably
expect armour to improve at roughly the same pace, cancelling out the improved
killing power. In order to get noticably improved range (without disastrously
low hit probabilities), you need either
* a much higher muzzle velocity. Pretty much can't be done with a
man-portable recoilless weapon unless you're willing to risk serious
harm to its crew from overpressure whenever you fire the thing (except
possibly PA). Or,
* boost velocity in the trajectory. Can be done, but you have to be certain
that the projectile points exactly the right way when the booster engine kicks
in 'cuz otherwise your hit probability goes down
the drain. This is the reason the rocket-assisted anti-armour CG rounds
aren't really effective beyond ~500 meters - they usually don't point
exactly the right way, so accuracy does go down the drain at long ranges. If
you want to shoot further than this with a boosted grenade,
you need at least inertial guidance in the projectile - turning it into
a GSM/P with Basic fire control rather than an IAVR, to use SGII
terminology. DSII doesn't have GSM/Ps, incorporating them in the IAVR
category for simplicity instead.
> As for the ADP/PDS question, I'll concede that they probably will have
ADS/PDS really should be able to stop IAVRs as well <shrug>
> I'm glad I threw this to the
Personally I'd treat them either as an SAW element with IAVRs, or as a
combined SAW/man-portable Ultra-Light Artillery element with IAVRs (see
rules on Andrew Martin's page for Ultra-Light Artillery). No need for
new mechanics IMO <shrug>
Regards,
Sorry, the Jane's commentwasn't meant to be taken literally, it was merely a
comment on your obviously far greater knowledge of weapons than mine.
OK, I see your point about ranges, so let's whittle it down further, to the 6"
you originally suggested.
As for the SAW/IAVR combo suggestion, in the end, that's pretty much
what I've come up with, except with slightly improved IAVR performance. As for
new mechanics, it's nothing really drastic. I also like the ultra-light
arty rules, but they seem more appropriate to re-creating mortars, not
direct-fire weapons of this nature.
Brian B
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
The parts about Carl Gustav, MBT-LAW and AT4 weren't taken from Jane's.
Developing those systems is my day-time job, which gives me a fair idea
of their limitations and development potentials :-/
Some of the parts about Javelin and the rest of our competitors came from
Jane's, though <g>
> However, in your last few lines I see my possible salvation. I know
Some parts of them will improve. Other parts won't, unless they're so
high-tech they can violate what we currently percieve as physical laws.
Newton's laws in particular.
> Remember we are playing "in
> weapons greater range. I still think a heavier answer to the IAVR,
You can get improved killing power, yes - but you can quite reasonably
expect armour to improve at roughly the same pace, cancelling out the improved
killing power. In order to get noticably improved range (without disastrously
low hit probabilities), you need either
* a much higher muzzle velocity. Pretty much can't be done with a
man-portable recoilless weapon unless you're willing to risk serious
harm to its crew from overpressure whenever you fire the thing (except
possibly PA). Or,
* boost velocity in the trajectory. Can be done, but you have to be certain
that the projectile points exactly the right way when the booster engine kicks
in 'cuz otherwise your hit probability goes down
the drain. This is the reason the rocket-assisted anti-armour CG rounds
aren't really effective beyond ~500 meters - they usually don't point
exactly the right way, so accuracy does go down the drain at long ranges. If
you want to shoot further than this with a boosted grenade,
you need at least inertial guidance in the projectile - turning it into
a GSM/P with Basic fire control rather than an IAVR, to use SGII
terminology. DSII doesn't have GSM/Ps, incorporating them in the IAVR
category for simplicity instead.
> As for the ADP/PDS question, I'll concede that they probably will have
ADS/PDS really should be able to stop IAVRs as well <shrug>
> I'm glad I threw this to the
Personally I'd treat them either as an SAW element with IAVRs, or as a
combined SAW/man-portable Ultra-Light Artillery element with IAVRs (see
rules on Andrew Martin's page for Ultra-Light Artillery). No need for
new mechanics IMO <shrug>
Regards,