Is it possible to create an infantry "weapons element" that has both GMS and
APSW capability? I can understand a possible problem with having both weapons
in a militia or line element, but I see no problem
with having a powered infantry element where one figure has a GMS/L and
another has an APSW. I'm figuring the point cost would be the basic
element cost, plus the GMS/L cost, plus the APSW cost. So for a powered
infantry element with GMS/L(Basic) and an APSW it would be 40+20+10=70.
Does this seem right?
-Mike
Interesting...
As a house rule, do what you want as long as players agree before the game.
Some thoughts
A PA suit can carry/be equiped with a Heavy weapon (GMS/L or APSW).
However,
space/weight limitations would limit the ammo (you are already stuffing
a lot into a PA suit). So, either you have less ammo and risk running out of
ammo, or you have the other memebers of the squad carry some ammo, reducing
the amount of weapons that they can carry.
GMS/L is a large weapon. It would probably take the entire squad (larger
squad of line infantry or smaller squad of PA) to carry the weapon and the
ammo, unless it is a one-shot. Even if it is a one-shot, the PA that is
carrying it would be encumbered by doing so (it takes 2/5ths of the
alloted
space of a size-1 vehicle to hold a GSM/L).
For simplicity sake, I would suggest making a specialist squad specialize in a
specific weapon.
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ft/
-----
> -----Original Message-----
> "Bell, Brian K" wrote:
> A PA suit can carry/be equiped with a Heavy weapon (GMS/L or APSW).
However,
> space/weight limitations would limit the ammo (you are already
Why? I presume you are talking about individuals, not teams. That would make
sense to a degree.
> GMS/L is a large weapon. It would probably take the entire squad
Nonsense. A Dragon or Javelin team is two men. It's heavy, but it's still two
men.
> Michael Sarno wrote:
Nope. It's much more than additive. Remember, GMS/L is big enough that
you loose your ranged infantry fire. I wouldn't allow it, full stop. I
don't recall any historical example with a MMG+ AND crew-served
anti-armor weapon in the same 4-man team. Remember, you've got a lot of
heavy equipment with lots of ammo. Speaking as someone who's done my
share of roadmarching with 'apsw' (M-240), I wouldn't want to add in the
burden of Dragon rounds as well.
> Is it possible to create an infantry "weapons element" that has
Except for the fact that I use 4 points for APSW, yes. (40 + 20 + 4 =
64).
As for a team including GMS/L and APSW, this seems a little odd. A GMS/L
takes 2 capacity points, a APSW takes another capacity point, while a PA team
requires 8 points of capacity. Perhaps your PA Team with these weapons is
actually 2 points of capacity greater?
Also it seems a little too diverse. The APSW would require different
positioning to the APSW, I feel.
> Andrew Martin wrote:
> > Is it possible to create an infantry "weapons element" that has
OK, I'm using the numbers from DS2 p.54.
> As for a team including GMS/L and APSW, this seems a little odd. A
DS2 p.13 indicates that both the GMS/L and APSW teams are 2-3 men
each. You're right that a full PA element requires 8 CP, but the specialist
element would have fewer than the full complement, I figured the extra weapons
and ammo took up the additional CPs.
> Also it seems a little too diverse. The APSW would require different
I'm not sure I follow. I'll assume you meant to compare the GMS/L
and APSW positions. I don't see the "weapons element" as being much different
than an APC with GMS and APSW. These weapons elements would hold back and only
be called forward when the rest of PA squad or platoon encounters something a
bit tougher than usual. Then, regardless of the threat, infantry or armor,
they move forward and provide supporting fire or launch a missile. They would
provide close support to their platoons while possessing the exact same type
of mobility as the rest of the PA platoon.
-Mike
> Mike wrote:
> I'm not sure I follow. I'll assume you meant to compare the GMS/L
One thing that might be better is an Infantry walker with a GMS/H (or a
turreted GMS/L - if you're using the rules on my site). The free
self-protection APSW can be handy. Plus, the Infantry walker (size one)
only takes up 8 capacity points to transport.
Hi, Brian.
Thanks for the response. I'm trying to fit PA into the background I've been
writing. I'd like to be able to do these "weapons elements," but only if I can
find a workable point cost and the concept can survive a reality check. So any
help is appreciated.
> "Bell, Brian K" wrote:
> A PA suit can carry/be equiped with a Heavy weapon (GMS/L or APSW).
However,
> space/weight limitations would limit the ammo (you are already
A line infantry element with either GMS/L or APSW is comprised of no
more than three men. They don't have any restriction to amount of ammo due to
space or weight. These line infantry only take up 4 CPs, that's men, small
arms, GMS or APSW, and the unlimited ammo to go with it. Two such elements
would take up 8 CPs. So, in effect, you could have one line infantry
specialist element with GMS and another with APSW, that, combined, take up
8CPs. Assume a BASIC guidance system on the GMS and these two elements would
have a PV of
(20+20)+(20+10)=70. They can move at BMF of 2". They can each take 4
damage points before going down.
Again, have the PA element with both GML/L and APSW, which would
take up 8
CPs. Assuming BASIC guidance, we get a PV of (40+20+10)=70. This
single element can move at BMF of 6" and can take 5 damage points before going
down. The PA costs the same as the line infantry.* It moves at three times the
speed. It takes 5 damage points to knock it out, but only time, as opposed to
the two line infantry elements which can each take 4 damage points. It can
only fire one of its weapons per turn. It seems like game balance isn't hurt.
*I'm perfectly willing to assign a slightly higher cost to the combined
specialist element. I don't know what that should be, though. Anyone who
agrees that there should be additional cost is welcome to advise.
> GMS/L is a large weapon. It would probably take the entire squad
Right, but I'm not sure that's a valid comparison. Part of those two CPs is
going towards the weapon mount, which, for infantry, is presumably the trooper
himself. <g>
-Mike
> "John M. Atkinson" wrote:
> Michael Sarno wrote:
I
> don't recall any historical example with a MMG+ AND crew-served
Well, it's probably more like a 3-man team. But the idea really
stems from SST. I just remember Rico bounding around, shooting his flamer and
launching tac nukes and HE. I figured a single PA trooper could handle his own
GMS or APSW, along with the ammo. I just don't see PA troopers in an element
swapping ammo or acting as loader for the APSW. The "extra" guys in the
element are probably just for security and to have an extra set of sensors to
acquire targets. I figured, it might be nice to give an APSW to one of the
troopers in the GMS element.
> Remember, you've got a lot of
I thought one of the ideas of PA was that it allowed you to carry that much
more than line infantry.
-Mike
For what it's worth...
The GMS/L i would imagine as not a suitable weapon for PA.....remember
in SG
that PA carry GMS/P and this is one of those examples where the crosover
between DS and SG isn't seemless. Someone recently proposed GMS/P stats
for DS...I personally don't see a problem with Mike in his background
utilising them both in the same team at relevant costs though.
As a side note I don't think the Minimi/M249 would fit in the APSW
category
- this equates to the SAW mentioned as an integral part of the Rifle
Team and not factored separately... the SG PA Point Fire RFAC style weapon
would be so I don't see a problem with this being carried in PA team either...
Cheers,
Owen G
> -----Original Message-----
Oops, to clarify before John A gets jumpy I misreferred to the M240 as the
M249...doesn't change my comment though, the MAG58/M240 is still not an
APSW...it is replacing the M60E3 in the USMC and we (Australian Army) used it
for quite a few years as an interim between the venerable M60 and
Minimi....
Owen G
[quoted original message omitted]
> Andrew Martin wrote:
> One thing that might be better is an Infantry walker with a GMS/H (or
That's not a bad idea, but I don't think it fits my background. It also brings
to light something I hadn't considered before. You can get an infantry
walker with GMS/L and the free APSW for the following point value:
VSP= 5
+20% for Armor 1= 1
= 6, which is the BVP
+60% BVP for FGP= 3.6 rounded to 4
+100% BVP for Combat Walker mobility= 6
=16 for the "hull"
+ GMS/L w/BASIC guidance= 20
=36 total
You now have something roughly equivalent to the combined weapons PA element.
The movement rate and restrictions are identical. Of course, the infantry
walker is going to be attacked and have its defense resolved differently: it's
going to be harder to hit, but most hits are going to destroy it. The 70
points for the the combined weapons PA team looks fair enough in this light.
-Mike
> "Glover, Owen" wrote:
> The GMS/L i would imagine as not a suitable weapon for PA.....remember
I have no problem with going with the GMS/P for my PA troops. I
missed the post regarding GMS/P stats for DS. I searched the archives,
but the most recent message for "GMS/P" came back as April 1999. Does
anybody have the post handy or perhaps the date of the post? Thanks.
-Mike
> Michael Sarno wrote:
> Well, it's probably more like a 3-man team. But the idea really
guys in
> the element are probably just for security and to have an extra set of
Actually, the Starship Troopers concept is much better dealt with as
Size-1 infantry walkers. IIRC, there's a web page with the rules. If
you don't find it before Saturday, e-mail me at johnmatkinson@yahoo.com
and I'll send it to you--I have a copy on my computor, but have neither
the file nor the bookmarks on my parent's computor. If your PA are as capable
as Mr.Rico & Friends, then likely they are the only ones out there.
> > Remember, you've got a lot of
Yup. And to move faster and get hit harder and keep going. It's a balance
between the two. I'd say 'book' PA has gone more towards being faster and
tougher, and the sacrifice was carrying capacity. I wouldn't
jump up one without down-scaling the other, but it's really your call.
> "Glover, Owen" wrote:
Format!
> The GMS/L i would imagine as not a suitable weapon for PA.....remember
Oh, yeah. GMS/P could be added to any stand. GMS/L, as a Dragon-type
weapon could be used by PA, but to my mind would still require a team.
> As a side note I don't think the Minimi/M249 would fit in the APSW
Right. But I said M-240, which is an FN MAG, essentially.
> Michael Sarno wrote:
> =36 total
Ummm... it's not going to be that hard to hit. It's only rolling a d10, which
is even up against superior FiCon at medium range. It would go boom with a
quickness.
> Michael Sarno wrote:
No. But since I think he's talking about something I said, I suggested 2
chits, validity as per IAVR, vulnerable to PDS and ECM like regular
GMS. 12" range. Points +10/+15/+20 for B/E/S.
> -----Original Message-----
Does
> > anybody have the post handy or perhaps the date of the post?
Thanks.
> No. But since I think he's talking about something I said, I
And my suggestion was normal GMS validity. ECM/PDS as normal, 1 chit vs.
armor, 3 chits vs infantry, 16" range, limited ammo (like artillery). Cost
is 1/2 GMS/L
> "Bell, Brian K" wrote:
> And my suggestion was normal GMS validity. ECM/PDS as normal, 1 chit
Cost
> is 1/2 GMS/L
Why the increased effectiveness vs. infantry? And why less effective than
IAVRs vs armor?
> "John M. Atkinson" wrote:
> Michael Sarno wrote:
guys in
> > the element are probably just for security and to have an extra set
Right, I'm not trying to replicate SST with my PA. I mentioned SST because
that's one of the things that inspired me to think about such a PA weapons
element. I see PA as a scaled down version of the SST type. However, I like
the idea that they had a number of weapons to deal with many different types
of threats. I'm not
trying to make PA able to do that, but I'd like to be able to have a 2-
or 3-man
team of specialists be able to take on multiple threats.
-Mike
> "John M. Atkinson" wrote:
> Michael Sarno wrote:
I'm comparing it the PA, which don't get a roll when attacked by vehicles. So,
yes, it's going to be considerably (100% vs 40%) harder to hit.
-Mike
My thinking:
GMS/P is smaller than a GMS/L (which draws 3 chits vs armor and none vs
infantry), I decided to call it a size-1 weapon. The trade-off vs. IVAR
would be range vs. damage potential. GMS/P is probably not going to take
out a size 4 or larger tank (there are still Boom chits), but has a good
chance
against size 1 or 2. Trade off with GMS/L anti-armor team is that the
team
can ingage in an infantry fire fight by discarding the GMS/P, cost is
less,
and increased anti-infantry damage.
SG2 describes them as a support weapon, so my thinking was that they would
be a dual purpose weapon (unlike GMS/L IMHO). Drawing 1 chit against
infantry allows a kill on Militia only on a draw of a 3 (of the correct
validity), and makes it impossible to kill Line Infantry (takes 4 to kill) or
PA (takes 5 to kill). So, I thought that I would make it 3 chits, like an
ASPW. Perhaps 2 would have been better, but I went with 3 (especially since
I was limiting the ammo). GSM/L, GSM/H, and IVARs have NO EFFECT agianst
infantry in DS2.
I pictured GSM/P as a radio guided missile. The launcher has a plasma
screen for TV signal from missile (as the flight time over the 1.6km max range
is too short to switch to another controler). The user would guide the missile
after launch. ECM would still have a chance to jam the signal to/from
the missile. And PDS would have the ability to try to shoot it down.
So I end up with: Pros:
- Anti-Armor at longer range (4xIVAR and out of ASPW range).
- Increase in Anti-Infantry ability.
- Unit becomes a infantry rifle squad after ammo runs out or GMS/P is
discarded (GMS/P is disposable)
Cons:
- Anti-Armor capability is less than IVAR
- Limited Ammo (2 for militia/line, 3 for PA)
- Treated as an anti-armor team (p. 13) until ammo is gone or weapon
abandoned
When I was doing my rules for portable version of heavy weapons, I was
trying to be consistant with the rules for all /P weapons. I decided to
make
them all equivilent to class-1, draw 3 chits vs infantry (easier to aim
than vehicle mounted weapons), but limit the range to Close (or 16" for
weapons
with only 1 range band [GMS/P and HEL/P]).
I'd argue that the M240 IS an APSW, while the M249 is NOT - quite a bit
of difference between a weapon that fires 7.62 mm ammo, is replacing the
M-60,
and is used for fire support at the PLATOON level, and a 5.56 mm weapon,
capable of using an AR clip, and called a SQUAD Automatic Weapon. JMO.
Brian B
> From: "Glover, Owen" <oglover@museum.vic.gov.au>
used
> it for quite a few years as an interim between the venerable M60 and
I believe it was my idea to convert GMS/P into DSII, and someone else
helped me come up with stats. Basically:
The GMS/P can be used to replace a rifle element's IAVR's, but at an
extra cost: 5 points for basic FireCon, 10 for enhanced, 15 for superior. 12"
range, resolve the To Hit like any other GMS, on a hit draw 2 chits, and use
the same validities as an IAVR.
Brian B
> From: Michael Sarno <msarno@ptdprolog.net>
> From: "Bell, Brian K" <Brian_Bell@dscc.dla.mil>
> > No. But since I think he's talking about something I said, I
Cost
> is 1/2 GMS/L
Hmmm... I remember John's suggestion, as posted above, it was in response to
my question about them... it seems we all have our own minor preferences
about the subtle nuances og GMS/P's in DS, since as it's obvious from my
previous post, that I didn't stick with his exact numbers. Whichever set you
go with, it just might be the perfect fit for the PA that were being
toyed with.
Hi Brian,
I'd have to argue against this. First I apologise if this is tending to get
off thread a little...
DS, Page 13 - the APSW is quoted as "...eg. heavy MG, Automatic grenade
Launcher or equivalent." - Mk19 AGL and 50 Cal equiv
The Rifle team is described as "...also contain a light team support weapon
(an LMG or GPMG equivalent0..." Minimi and MAG58
The Australian Army Infantry Centre, Small Arms Wing, implemented the
replacement of the MAG58 with the Minimi. At section level. The MAG58 is
retained as a tripod mounted support weapon at Coy and Bn level. In this role
then classification as APSW may be warranted but bear in mind that First Line
for a section something like 1,000 rds and for a SFMG it is 40,000!!! The SFMG
has tripod and C2 site system as well....it really does need a vehicle and 3
men to operate it!
Cheers,
Owen G
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Bell, Brian K" <Brian_Bell@dscc.dla.mil>
Umm... that's less than a lowly IAVR. I agree with John on this one... 2 chits
seems better.
> Trade off with GMS/L anti-armor team is that the team
Again, I have a problem with using GMS vs infantry... I know that's been
done to death, but I missed most of the arguement since it was SG and I only
play DS. However, my thinking with the GMS/P especially is that with
such a
small size, you're going to need a dedicated tank-killing round to be
effective, not a DP warhead. Besides, these are designed to be expensive but
effective IAVR replacements, and as such are specifically there to give
a rifle element some AT punch. I'd never allow them to fire the GMS/P's
AS WELL AS their personal weapons, and they'd be foolish to fire them at
infantry INSTEAD OF their weapons, since their weapons do 2 points of damage,
3 if they'r e PA
> (especially since
Again, I'd give them unlimited ammo, like an IAVR, since they're small enough
for an element to have each man carry 1 or 2, should be plenty for most
battles.
> I pictured GSM/P as a radio guided missile. The launcher has a plasma
I was under the impression that GMS' in the Tuffleyverse were supersmart F&F
rounds... why should the P be different than the L or H?
> Michael Sarno wrote:
> > Ummm. . . it's not going to be that hard to hit. It's only rolling
OK. If you wanna look at it that way. However, if one of our math
gurus does the math on how often an MDC/4 will take out either stand,
presuming no cover, the walker would die probably 5-10 times as fast.
I've fragged a lot of signature 2 vehicles. But powered armor is incredibly
tough. Due to chit system, the benefits of 5 HTK vs. 4 HTK is not simply
linear progression. PA which dies to main gun fire is a freak event.
> "Bell, Brian K" wrote:
IVAR
> would be range vs. damage potential. GMS/P is probably not going to
In my mind, the tradeoff is cost. SGII has the /P and IAVR having same
anti-armor effect. I see your point, but. . .
> SG2 describes them as a support weapon, so my thinking was that they
Support weapon. . . I really see this as taking out positions--machine
gun nests, bunkers, etc. It's really lethal against that, and has some
effect against troops used in an impact-fuzed role. But not much more
than a grenade. I just can't figure it would be as effective as a
APSW--MK19s and .50 cal HMGs are _damn_ good at what they are designed
for. I'd say 2 chits.
> I pictured GSM/P as a radio guided missile. The launcher has a plasma
That seems plausible.
Hi Back Owen,
This is one of the reasons I proposed more than one class of APSW - The
5.56 weapons seemed obviously too light to be APSW's, and the.50 cal and 40mm
grens were OBVIOUSLY APSW's, but it left me asking "What about 7.62 mm and
such?" I don't know what the American equivalent of your Section is, but the
M240G, to quote the USMC, as they use it, is "able to provide a heavy,
controlled volume of accurate, long range fire that is far beyond the
capabilities of individual small arms." Moreover, the maximum effective range
is listed as 1,800 meters (forgive the yank spelling), which definitely gives
it, in DS terms, range on the order of an APSW. The M249 SAW, on the other
hand, "supplements the firepower of the... M16A2 rifle." Definitely part of a
rifle element, not an APSW.
Which brings us back to, "OK, if 7.62's an APSW (Humor me for the sake of
arguement), and.50 cal is an APSW, that's a heel of a lot of divergence of
power within one weapon class." Which is why I proposed that APSW's be split
into APSW/M's (APSW's as we know them)and APSW/H's(NAstier than APSW's,
not as scary as an RFAC 1).
Brian Bilderback
> From: "Glover, Owen" <oglover@museum.vic.gov.au>
JMO.
> >
> "John M. Atkinson" wrote:
> Michael Sarno wrote:
Agreed, which is why I said "[the infantry walker is] going to be harder to
hit, but most hits are going to destroy
it." <g>
-Mike
Hi Brian,
Forgive me if I sound like I'm lecturing here :-)
When looking a particular countries published docrtine for employment of a
weapon you do need to be a little careful and consider more than a single
written statement. Also you really shouldn't just consider a weapon caliber as
defining it's role nor just it's rate of fire.....
Oh, the Commonwealth Section is the equivalent US Squad
Consider -
Tracer burnout is 1100 meters, for the range of 1800m you will find the weapon
needs to be tripod mounted (without C2 site) and requires a spotter,
preferably one close to the target. Trying to spot fall of shot at 1800 is
nigh impossible with 7.62 ammo. With C2 Site (or equiv) the Effective Range is
extended to 2,500 to 3,000m.
In bipod role role both the MAG58 and Minimi (240/249) have an effective
range of 500 to 600m. Effective SECTION/SQUAD fire is 500m with
M16A2/Steyr/SA80. In the bipod role the No2/Asst Gunner on a MAG58 is
quite free to fire his own rifle during a fire fight except for the times the
MG has a stoppage. in the tripod role it is a different story.
I'd suggest you look at how a weapon is employmed rather than just straight
capabiliites. So, at Coy Level with Tripod MAG58/240 is APSW but in a
Team it is just a SAW.
So, you see there is no SEEMLESS port from SG to DS nor 20C to 22C combat.
Cheers,
Owen G
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Glover, Owen" <oglover@museum.vic.gov.au>
,
> Forgive me if I sound like I'm lecturing here :-)
If it quacks like a duck...
> When looking a particular countries published docrtine for employment
Point well taken. My point was that the role of the M240 in US service WAS
described as slightly different as that of the SAW. Also, it's not the only
source I read (I shall never cease to regret that I cannot learn by serving,
only by asking, listening, and reading. I was not graced with a medical
history eligible for military service.) But now that I've digressed, let me
consider another source: Tom Clancy wrote an interesting book called Marine,
which delves into the structure of an MEU(SOC). Much of what he
says when he gives his OPINION is, admiteddly, a bit jingoistic. But he also
gives some nuts-and-bolts descriptions of force makeup. Accordingly, a
basic
fire team (Roughly a DS rifle element), is a leader with an M16/M203
combo, two M16 riflemen, and an M249 SAW gunner. M240's are included at the
company level, in the heavy weapons platoon, as support MG's - read
APSW.
> Also you really shouldn't just consider a weapon caliber
True, but combined, those two attributes ARE a good starting point.... add
range, penetration, and reliability, and you're well on your way.
> Oh, the Commonwealth Section is the equivalent US Squad
So about 12 men?
> Consider -
OK, so we equip it with a tripod and superior sights - voila! APSW!
Which
was my point - it is not necessarily relegated to being the organic SAW
of an element in DSII. Again, this supports my OTHER point that with rounds as
divergent in range and damage capavity as 5.56 mm all the way up to.50 cal
(and even 14.5 mm if we include the good ol' KPV), having only the oorganic
SAW and APSW categories is a bit too broad.
> I'd suggest you look at how a weapon is employmed rather than just
This is slightly different than your original blanket statement that the
M240 is not an APSW (No qualifier about it's mounting was added at that time).
Although I do have to say that this is finally a statement I CAN
agree with.
> So, you see there is no SEAMLESS port from SG to DS nor 20C to 22C
Nor, it would seem, from RL to DS...
Minor nitpick: when I was in (that's back in the '80's admittedly) the FT
leader and FT Scout used the M16A2, the FT grenadier used the M16/203,
and the FT gunner used the SAW.
Rob
ps-and the M60 (tripod mounted) was the "normal" APSW.
[quoted original message omitted]
> From: "Robert W. Hofrichter" <RobHofrich@peoplepc.com>
FT? Please spell out - I'm stumped on this one.
As I said, I gleaned this info from a book by Tom Clancy, not one of his
novels, but basically an indepth coverage of the makeup of a Marine
Expeditionary Unit, and according to the info they gave him, which he passed
on to the reader, the team leader of the fire team has the M16A2/M203
combo, the two riflemen have M16A2's, and the automatic rifleman carries an
M249. Three teams and a sergeant make up a squad, and three squads plus a Lt.
and a platoon Sgt. make up a platoon.
> ps-and the M60 (tripod mounted) was the "normal" APSW.
The M60 has been phased out, or is being phased out, I'm not sure if the
process is complete.
I used FT as short for fireteam. Sorry 'bout that, but I was in a bit of a
hurry as my 3-year old son was demanding attention...
[quoted original message omitted]
'Sok, I put 2 and 2 together about 5 seconds after I fired off that post. Duh!