All this talking about DSII artillery made me take a thorough look at the DSII
rules for the first time since I began working for my current employer.
It is almost scary to compare the DSII rules with the developments and
trends I see in the armaments industry today - very much of it is very
close to reality, even though the PSB tries to explain it away as wild
fantasies :-/ However, in some areas the DSII tech blurb is
nonsensical, or has been bypassed by developments made public after its
publishing. I don't have any tried and tested game mechanics for most of these
areas, but the rough points I've noticed so far are:
* HKPs... don't work with the current PSB. The blurb describes them as
"...relatively small-calibre (but VERY long) barrel to develop
hyper-velocities for its superdense long-rod penetrator rounds ...",
and goes on to describe two pressure-driven launch mechanisms (LP and
"plasma reaction"). Long barrels are impractical for a number of reasons,
among which are drooping (and whipping, when the round travels up the drooping
barrel) and plain awkwardness when you try to maneuver them through dense
terrain without bumping them into things. Since the accelerating force
in a pressure-driven gun is equal to pressure times barrel cross
section, using a saboted long-rod round in a large calibre gun allows
you to get away with a much shorter barrel for the same muzzle velocity as
well as allowing the use of effective HE rounds (and various other
types too, if you feel like it). IOW, a HVC (large-calibre
pressure-driven gun) firing saboted long-rod penetrators should at
least as effective as a HKP - and more flexible to boot.
* Reactive Armour protects against long-rod penetrators (HVC and MDC)
as well as against IAVR/GMS/SLAM. Current ERA can be optimized against
either SC or KE munitions but will have a certain effect against the other as
well; lots of work is being done on making a single ERA type decent against
both SC and KE.
* Merge PDS with ADFC. Current anti-GMS/IAVR PDS is basically a very
sophisticated (and expensive) sensor suite/fire control system which
detects incoming missiles and fires a small (and simple, and therefore cheap)
fragmentation charge into the missile path (making them *very*
unpopular with supporting infantry, too - just like the DSII APFC).
IOW, if a PDS-equipped tank uses its PDS against an incoming missile
(or IAVR) and there's an infantry stand within 1" in the direction the missile
came from, that infantry stand is hit as if by an APFC. APFCs can be bought on
their own, but lack the sensors required to shoot down missiles (including
IAVRs).
* Allow ADS to intercept incoming artillery rounds - I'm 99% certain
that there will be at least one such system in active service within 5 years.
Of course it will pretty soon be countered by carrier shells filled with decoy
submunitions etc; in DSII terms this is an opposed dieroll between the quality
of the ADS and the quality of the incoming salvo.
* Allow aerospace-mounted HELs, of any size, to be turret-mounted. The
US are currently developing airborne turreted laser systems for theater
defence against ballistic missiles, and according to the rumour mill -
ie, Jane's Defence Weekly - the tests seem to go fairly well. I don't
think it'd be very difficult to beef the laser up enough to let it harm
armoured ground vehicles.
* Allow infantry elements to buy Smoke "artillery" rounds, and fire
them to a range of 15-20". (We can do 15" today; in 20 years we'll
probably manage 20" as well.)
* Give IAVRs a range of 6", and GMS/H a range of 50" or even 60".
(IAVRs already have this kind of range; many of today's GMS/H have a
range of at least 45" - and it isn't likely to be reduced in the
future.)
* Allow infantry GMS/L teams in open-topped vehicles to fire their
missiles "effectively" (ie, able to hit and inflict actual damage), but
at a one die-shift penalty in missile guidance (ie, Basic rolls 1D4,
Enhanced 1D6, Superior 1D8).
* Diversify the artillery options:
- Flechette rounds: Counts as HEF against Militia and Line infantry,
as MAK against PA, and completely ineffective against armoured vehicles
(armour level 1 or more *in the front*). (Flechettes are very good at
penetrating cloth, kevlar fibres, earth, timber etc, but literally
piss-poor against hard armour). In addition, flechette missions will
NOT set fire to things like woods or buildings.
- HEF rounds - roughly equivalent to today's cluster munitions. Nasty
against unprotected infantry or vehicles in open terrain; pretty much
ineffective otherwise. Just make sure they detonate on impact, 'cuz otherwise
Lady Di's ghost will come to haunt you.
- PGDH rounds (Precision Guided, Direct Hit - not a good name, but
they're quite different from the MAKs so I need a different name for them...)
These are direct descendants of weapons like the US Copperhead
or the Swedish Strix, using a shape-charged warhead big enough to punch
through the front of a 1999 MBT horisontally even through fairly
serious reactive armour... but with a stand-off of a couple of meters
at most. Counts as MAK against both infantry and vehicles, but the target can
use both its ECM *and its PDS* to defend against it (in addition to any nearby
ADS helping out).
- MAK: Future generations of the Bofors/GIAT Bonus, or any of its
numerous cousins and rivals. Fires an EFP with a stand-off of about 200
meters; this nullifies the target's PDS (but not its ECM), but since an EFP is
a lot less lethal than a good shaped charge it draws one chit
less than normal and counts chit validities as a long-rod penetrator
(including vulnerability to ERA).
- Smoke, DMRs, nukes and bio-chem are unchanged.
- Finally, I'd take a very long and close look at the FASA Centurion
vehicle design system. While I don't agree with most of their figures, the
basic system is sounder than the one used in DSII (I particularly
miss the ability to down-armour a vehicle to make it faster, or
up-armour its roof :-/ )
Thomas Barclay, May You Live in Interesting Times! I don't have time to get
engaged in DSII as well... <G>
In message <199911292217.XAA11670@mailg.telia.com> "Oerjan Ohlson" writes:
> All this talking about DSII artillery made me take a thorough look at
[...]
> * HKPs... don't work with the current PSB. The blurb describes them as
I've never liked HKP's. Three different kinetic energy guns seem like at least
one too many. Old Dirtside only had one, the mass
driver cannon (as well as a HEAT ammo rocket-assisted gun and the
familiar DFFG and HEL). Playtest Dirtside II had a smart-munition-
firing gun, but I 'spose that's too similar to a GMS.
[...]
> * Allow ADS to intercept incoming artillery rounds - I'm 99% certain
About how far away is a submunition-carrying artillery shell when
it seperates? Is it feasable to bring it down before this point?
[...]
> * Allow infantry GMS/L teams in open-topped vehicles to fire their
Do you mean open-topped or open-hatched? Several different APCs
seem to allow this, German Marders, UK Warriors.
[...]
> - Flechette rounds: Counts as HEF against Militia and Line infantry,
In my (very) limited understanding, current arty submuntion are
usually dual-purpose with both fragmentation and a shaped charge
attacking any vehicle unfortunate enough to be hit directly. Wouldn't this
still be the case for a flechette submunition?... that they would be equally
as effective against vehicles as HEF?
[...]
> - PGDH rounds (Precision Guided, Direct Hit - not a good name, but
This is surely a case for artillery-delivered GMS systems.
> David Brewer wrote:
DS2 rules for artillery delivered GMS are on my site, here:
http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/DSII/
in the Artillery section.
> On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, David Brewer wrote:
> In message <199911292217.XAA11670@mailg.telia.com> "Oerjan Ohlson"
writes:
> > - Flechette rounds: Counts as HEF against Militia and Line
if the flechette round does include a HEAT component, then yes, but it
might not - that would help it out against armour.
i'm all for a single type of explosive artillery round (more or less). i can't
remember what it was called, but US army boffins have developed a round which
is an extension of the EFP; it has a metal disc at the front, and explosive
behind, like a normal EFP, but there are many detonators, all under computer
control (a bit like the detonator for a nuke).
by varying the pattern of detonation, the computer can control the shape of
the blast wave which goes into the disc, and, thus, the shape it takes when it
shoots out of the front. they can make it long and thin, to penetrate armour
effectively, or short and fat, to fly well, allowing the round to detonate
further from the target and thus evade PDS, or it can make it break up into
lots of little pieces, to attack infantry. presumably it could make it break
up into several medium pieces to attack PA or light vehicles if needed.
anyway, the point is that this one type of round can engage all types of
target. it's not too pricey (how much does a microprocessor, some wires and
some detonators cost? how much will it cost once this technology has been in
use for 200 years?) and it's easy to use (press the button marked 'tank' or
'infantry' as appropriate, or have your computer do it for
you).
i can see this type of ammo replacing current AP and AT rounds fairly soon.
now, that doesn't mean it will be equally effective against tanks and
infantry in any one salvo - you still have to choose a tradeoff between
the two (eg 20% of the salvo in AT mode, 60% in AP mode and 20% in
Anti-PA/softskin mode) - but how often do you fire a salvo at infantry
and armour together?
tom
Hey guys regardinmg any round that fires discarding Sabot, I've never seen
this
mentioned in any mini-rules but there are definate hazardous conditions
to consider.
1. If your tanks are firing chemical propellant rounds: The overpressure on a
120mm main tank gun can kill a soldier within a ninety degree arc out to 200
meters.
2. Discarding sabots can kill soldiers between 200-1000 meters. (I've
seen the peices out on teh range, flung out this far like shrapnel.
Los
> David Brewer wrote:
> In message <199912022140.WAA15314@d1o29.telia.com> "Oerjan Ohlson"
writes:
> > David Brewer wrote:
> David Brewer wrote:
> > * HKPs... don't work with the current PSB. The blurb describes them
> > as "...relatively small-calibre (but VERY long) barrel to develop
Yep. Particularly when one of them is physically... well, maybe not
*impossible*, but extremely unpractical.
> Old Dirtside only had one, the mass driver cannon (as well as a HEAT
Modern HVCs are able to fire HEAT, KE of various types (APDS, APFSDS, etc),
HESH (poor vs vehicles, very good against buildings etc), HE (ie,
anti-personnel frag charges) etc. Restricting them to rocket-assisted
HEAT only seems a bit too restrictive to me :-/
> Playtest Dirtside II had a smart-munition- firing gun, but I 'spose
...which could be taken to represent the current Russian fashion of launching
missiles through the main gun of an MBT as well as the more common approach of
carrying a separate missile launcher somewhere.
> > * Allow ADS to intercept incoming artillery rounds - I'm 99%
IIRC within a km of the target, which is deemed close enough at least
for the laser-based ADS under development now.
> > * Allow infantry GMS/L teams in open-topped vehicles to fire their
Good point. Not sure if the weapons used in these cases correspond to
IAVR (GMS/P) or GMS/L, though - ie, were they LAW-80/AT4 types, or
Milan and similar?
Open-*topped* vehicles would have no problems at all allowing this;
open-*hatched* ones might depending on how large the grunts' missile
launcher is.
> > - Flechette rounds: Counts as HEF against Militia and Line
Current artillery submunition carrier rounds (the term doesn't usually include
flechette rounds) correspond either to DSII HEF (cluster
rounds, 20-50 subs in each shell) or to MAK (Bonus-style, currently 2
subs per shell).
Flechettes are 1-2 inches long and up to some mm in diameter; solid
metal, no explosives, several hundred (in some cases - 152mm rounds
IIRC - several thousand) in each shell. Think of them as anti-infantry
long rod penetrators. Nothing like them in DSII at the moment.
> > - PGDH rounds (Precision Guided, Direct Hit - not a good name, but
Which is basically what you get when you allow ECM and PDS to defend against
MAK rounds.
The differences lie in the number of missiles launched in one go (several per
launch tube per game turn for PGDH, one per tube per turn for GMS) and
therefore the number of targets one salvo can engage (all targets under the
template for PGDH, one for GMS), and the way you buy them in the vehicle
design rules (one salvo for PGDH vs one
last-all-battle box for GMS).
Regards,
> Andrew Martin wrote:
> David Brewer wrote:
That's not a very good representation of STRIX, I'm afraid. (Can't
vouch for the Copperheads - we don't build those :-/ ) Standard MAK, in
spit of using simpler mechanics, comes much closer to describing STRIX's
behaviour against today's AFV defences (ie, no ECM or PDS in
DSII terms). When/if the Russians get Drozd-3 into service, they'll
have PDS able to stop incoming STRIXs or Copperheads.
One more thing about PGDHs - those in service today don't hit friendly
vehicles, unless said friendly vehicles look identical to the enemy
ones :-/
Regards,
In message <199912022140.WAA15314@d1o29.telia.com> "Oerjan Ohlson" writes:
> David Brewer wrote:
Impractical hardly seems the issue. Jon copied out the fluff text from a David
Drake book.
> > Old Dirtside only had one, the mass driver cannon (as well as a HEAT
> > ammo rocket-assisted gun and the familiar DFFG and HEL).
Doesn't 120mm HESH ammo hold the current long-range tank-kill
record at around 6km? It was, of course, designed for destroying concrete
fortifications in WWII.
> HE (ie,
I didn't think of them as HVC-like guns (I no longer have a copy
of DS1 for reference) but as low-pressure guns, like the Russian
73mm or 100mm guns used on the BMP-1 and -3 respectively... eg.
not a weapon capable of throwing KE penetrators about. I don't recall if the
fluff text specifically said HEAT. It really isn't very relevant whether the
shell was HEAT, HESH or some sort of explosively forged or propelled
penetrator. In game terms the penetration did not vary on range, while the
penetration for MDC's did.
The general lack of anti-personnel ammo is just one of those DS
things, I 'spose. Whether a tank-scale railgun is likely to be
able to throw a large-calibre HE-frag-type bomb is something I,
as yet, don't know.
> > Playtest Dirtside II had a smart-munition-firing gun, but I
Sure, although, again, you don't need an HVC for that. The BMP-3's
low-pressure 100mm gun also does this.
> > > * Allow ADS to intercept incoming artillery rounds - I'm 99%
Thanks for the info.
> > > * Allow infantry GMS/L teams in open-topped vehicles to fire their
Milan, in both cases.
Are oprn-topped vehicles popular with anybody who plays DS2?
Closed vehicle miniatures are much easier to cast...
[...]
> > > - Flechette rounds: Counts as HEF against Militia and Line
Actually, this is what the fluff text for MAK describes... "a cloud of kinetic
penetrators". Wouldn't the KE of the penetrators depend very much on the tube
launching them? meaning a mortar has a lower muzzle velocity than a gun,
therefore the flechettes will fall to earth much faster and with (as endless
detailed of late) more KE.
I do, however, see what you mean now. I was envisioning your flechettes being
scattered like fragmentation from HEF rounds.
> On 2-Dec-99 at 22:10, Los (los@cris.com) wrote:
So to use your tank in anti-personnel mode get within 200 meters
and shoot in the general direction of your enemy? If they are beyond that
range use the sabot as shrapnel?:)
> At 09:49 AM 12/3/99 -0500, you wrote:
Actually my choice of the word shrapnel is not quite accurate, it's basicaly
two pieces, the left and right half of the sabot, but it's just as deadly.
> On 3-Dec-99 at 11:14, Los (los@cris.com) wrote:
This is just my understanding and could be wrong, however,
Vehicles don't survive without infantry support. So how does infantry support
something that, in order to perform its mission, may well kill them?
What I'm getting at is how do you escort something like this? I'm assuming
"kill a soldier to 200 meters" also means anyone within 40 or so meters in any
arc is going to at least be injured, even if it is just extreme hearing
damage.
No... Don't put your OWN infantry or unarmored vehicles within 200m of your
OWN tank!
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ds2/
-----
> -----Original Message-----
(I've
> seen
If, in your combined arms unit, your infantry are leading the advance, you're
doing something wrong.
The armor units are vulnerable to infantry attacks from the flanks and rear as
well as close assaults. This is what you use your own infantry to defend
against.
Jon
[quoted original message omitted]
> At 11:17 AM 12/3/99 -0500, you wrote:
Simple you stand behind or off to the side of the main gun or reamin in the
IFV. or take your chances. keep in mind that when you go into the final
assault when tanks are intermixed with infantry they are using MGs not main
guns. (though watch out if they see something that scares them.)
> On 3-Dec-99 at 15:29, Los (los@cris.com) wrote:
Is that expected in City fighting?
Kind of on that subject, has anyone done an SGII scenario in the city?
> David Brewer wrote:
> > Yep. Particularly when one of them is physically... well, maybe not
Makes me feel a lot better to know that Jon isn't guilty of that kind
of PSB - ie, with the emphasis on the B :-)
> > > Old Dirtside only had one, the mass driver cannon (as well as a
The shot was fired from a Challenger II so it could've been HESH if the target
was an old Iraqi tank (ie, older than T72), but I seem to recall the people at
RMCS telling me it was an APFSDS.
OTOH, the 120mm HESH round was definitely used in the blue-on-blue
incident where a Challenger II hit a British-crewed Warrior squarely in
the side... fortunately the Warrior had add-on armour, so it survived
with only minor damage :-/ If *that* had been a long-rod or HEAT, the
Warrior would have been completely wrecked.
> > HE (ie, anti-personnel frag charges) etc. Restricting them to
The 73mm low-pressure rockets we modified the fuses on for the Swedish
BMPs were unguided IIRC, but of course that'd work too. However, there
are several types of guided missiles that are fired from high-pressure
guns today
> I don't
> The general lack of anti-personnel ammo is just one of those DS
Depends on the calibre of the gun. Railguns are unlikely to be very
large-calibre - they don't need to if their main job is to throw
long-rods. You can build reasonable HE rounds for 40mm and upwards
though - just make sure the fuse isn't affected in the wrong way by the
electromagnetic fields - so they should probably be able to fire HE as
well.
> > > Playtest Dirtside II had a smart-munition-firing gun, but I
somewhere.
> Sure, although, again, you don't need an HVC for that. The BMP-3's
But the HVC can do so many more things than the low-pressure guns. If
all you want to do is launch GMS and HE the low-pressure gun works
fine, but it lacks flexibility.
> > > > * Allow infantry GMS/L teams in open-topped vehicles to fire
OK. Then mounted GMS infantry should be able to fire their missiles
effectively, period.
> Are oprn-topped vehicles popular with anybody who plays DS2?
I doubt it, since they currently get severe penalties but no cost reduction.
> > > > - Flechette rounds:
rounds
> > IIRC - several thousand) in each shell. Think of them as
No, it isn't. A 2"-long flechette will not penetrate an armoured
vehicle. If it is
very, very, *very* lucky, it *might* get half-way through a steel
helmet. It will, however, easily go through flesh, earth and cloth (including
kevlar), and fairly well through timber.
Most infantry doesn't have hard body armour covering the whole
body, though - PA comes closest, but I assume they might get hurt by
hits in joints etc if they are unlucky (thus the MAK effect vs PA, but they
could equally well be treated as "vehicles" instead vs flechette rounds)...
and there are lots of PA models showing the troopers
bare-headed, too <g>
The current tactical use for flechette rounds is against enemy infantry which
has come in among your vehicles... or against enemy infantry positions you
want to suppress while your battle taxis drive right up to the enemy position
before the barrage stops and your own assault infantry dismounts.
EFP warheads (such as those used in the MAK-ish rounds under
development today) are virtually identical to long rod penetrators from
the viewpoint of the target - they inflict damage in exactly the same
way. The only thing which differs is how the long rod is delivered. IOW, EFP
subs fit the DSII PSB description of MAK very well.
> Wouldn't the KE of the penetrators depend very much on the tube
For anti-tank long rods and some shotgun flechette rounds for close
defence, yes. For artillery-delivered flechettes and the ADM ammo the
US Rangers use for the CG RR, the means by which the flechettes are expelled
from the carrier shell is far more important.
> meaning a mortar has
If the mortar has a lower muzzle velocity, the flechettes it delivers will
fall to the ground *sooner* (or at a shorter range), but they most likely
won't go *faster*.
Regards,
In message <199912040132.CAA02891@d1o29.telia.com> "Oerjan Ohlson" writes:
> David Brewer wrote:
[swathes of snipping]
> > > > Old Dirtside only had one, the mass driver cannon (as well as a
Ah, with the digressions (that I've cut out) we're getting confused. I mean to
say that DS1 had a gun, the RAC (?) much like
the unguided rocket-assisted shell fired from the 73mm gun on a
BMP-1.
The whole business of guidance comes in with the SMC from playtest DS2.
[...]
> > The general lack of anti-personnel ammo is just one of those DS
Sure, but not as big and effective as the HE bombs thrown by a
HVC-type weapon. So instead of having two KE guns with one clearly
superior to the other, we can posulate two KE guns with one optimised for
shooting tanks, the other having more effect against
personnel, this giving us a genuine non-points-cost-based
descision on what to fit in a tank. A more interesting choice.
> > > > Playtest Dirtside II had a smart-munition-firing gun, but I
Sure, but for an appreciable saving in size/mass for the same
calibre.
> > > > > - Flechette rounds:
solid
> > > metal, no explosives, several hundred (in some cases - 152mm
...I didn't say it was *good* fluff text...
[...]
> The current tactical use for flechette rounds is against enemy
Well, I disagree... 2 rounds per shell is no "cloud", but it's of
no great importance. It's enough that DS has anti-tank ammo and
anti-personnel ammo. The elegance of DS1's artillery rules was one
of the things that really attracted me to it. There was no pissing
about trying to simulate non-submunition arty or dumb iron bombs,
all arty/bombs were submunition-based just because it made for
much more elegant rules. Now (ten+ years later) it's all coming
true.
> > Wouldn't the KE of the penetrators depend very much on the tube
I apologise for mangling my paragraph. I meant to say that, presumably
flechettes dumped out of gun shells will fall faster than flechettes dumped
out of mortar shells, because they go up faster and further. I see that I was
anyway.
(BTW It took me a while to expand CG RR to Carl Gustav Recoiless Rifle.)
> David Brewer wrote:
> > > Whether a tank-scale railgun is likely to be
No, but with considerably smaller magazine requirements for each round so you
can have more of them and can therefore afford a higher rate of fire. The
overall effect on the target wouldn't necessarily be that different.
> So instead of having two KE guns with one clearly
Certainly. The railgun would be considerably better at throwing long rods
while the HVC would have the greater flexibility, but the HVC can throw long
rods and the railgun would probably be able to fire reasonable HE.
> > But the HVC can do so many more things than the low-pressure guns.
Of course. Almost all flexibility costs you something somewhere <g>
> > > > > > - Flechette rounds:
[snip]
> > > Actually, this is what the fluff text for MAK describes... "a
It is, IMO - but it is a reasonably accurate description of the EFP
submunition rounds, not of the anti-infantry flechettes <g>
> > EFP warheads (such as those used in the MAK-ish rounds under
Depends on your definition of a "cloud", I suppose. Two subs per round (the
shell is the round) with approx. 3 rounds from each launch tube per DSII salvo
(ie, 3 rounds within 10 seconds, then scoot) should be enough to provide at
least one sub per vehicle target in the beaten
zone - unless of course the targets are clustered extremely closely
together. If all intended targets can be engaged, then it qualifies as
a "cloud" IMO :-/
> It's enough that DS has anti-tank ammo and anti-personnel ammo.
Not if you want to use today's Russian mounted infantry assault tactics
<shrug>
Today, there are artillery munitions which exclusively kill infantry,
munitions which are very good at killing vehicles but almost powerless against
infantry, and munitions which are good against infantry and
so-so against vehicles. DSII only has two of those options at the
moment.
> The elegance of DS1's artillery rules was one
Yes. In many ways DSII is a very good system for simulating tank combat
in the 1990s (tech-wise; the DSII command structures are too advanced),
but several tech gadgets under development now are beginning to make
DSII somewhat obsolete in certain respects :-/
> I apologise for mangling my paragraph. I meant to say that,
OK. I guess I've answered what you meant already, then :-)
> (BTW It took me a while to expand CG RR to Carl Gustav Recoiless
<g> Sorry. No doubt the British armed forces used a TLA of its own for it
instead, but I don't know what it was <g>
Regards,
> At 10:21 PM 12/2/99 GMT, you wrote:
writes:
> David Brewer wrote:
<< snip >>
> HE (ie,
::blink::
Huh, a while ago I posted (what I thought was) a new weapons system for DSII,
but got no response. Here it is again:
=========================
I've been mulling over my Free State background lately, working up some TOE's
and designing vehicles, and it seems that there is something of a gap in the
weapons provided in the rules. They all seem to be optimized for putting holes
in thick chunks of metal. While this may be all well and good for those Great
Powers that have the industrial and financial wherewithall to build, deploy,
and replace the heavy metal, those of us out on the frontiers don't have those
luxuries, or those kinds of enemies. We spend most of our time trying to deal
with the scads of infantry running around
with the Twenty Second century versions of AK-47's and RPG's. Hence the
following weapon:
Low Velocity Cannons (LVC): The LVC operates on the same principles as the
HVC, however, the LVC is optimized for firing chemical energy warheads at
moderate velocities. The
emphasis on a good Anti-Personel capability, with secondary Anti-Armour
performance. A useful twentieth century comparision would be the 76 to 90
mm low pressure cannon, or the 81 mm gun-mortars primarily found in
Third World militaries. The LVC comes only in size classes 3 and 4.
Range Table: Close Range Medium Range Long Range
LVC/3 12 " 20"
28"
LVC/4 14" 23"
32"
Damage LVC: Against Reactive Armour: Yellow Chits Against all other armours:
Red Chits Against Infantry:: Red Chits
Costs: 6 x Size of weapon.
Rationale: As a lower velocity version of the HVC, the LVC would seem to have
less inherent accuracy and range, so I knocked 4 inches off the equivelent
sized HVC range. Since the antiarmour effect comes from a chemical warhead
like those on the GMS systems, but since the warhead is lighter than on those
systems, I reduced the effects. Since the whole point
of the weapon was to have an effective anit- infantry effect, I gave it
the best AP capability I could find on the DF weapons chart. This was the
DFFG, and I can justify this by saying the LVC has a special AP shell that
only a low velocity weapon can fire (sensitive fuzing, greater HE load,
whatever). I'm not real sure about the points, just looking at it it seems
less useful than a standard HVC, but somewhat more than RFAC's. I gave it 6 x
the size, but I'm open to discussion.
Any thoughts?
[quoted original message omitted]
> Don Greenfield wrote:
> Huh, a while ago I posted (what I thought was) a new weapons system
Sorry, missed it last time :-(
> Here it is again:
Third World militaries.
Add in the 120mm turret-mounted mortars coming into use now too -
primarily intended for indirect fire, but quite capable of direct fire as
well.
> The LVC comes only in size classes 3 and 4.
You could build it as size 5 as well, but (realistically) they'd
probably cost more than you gain over an LVC/4. Ammo size in particular
would cause problems.
> Range Table: Close Range Medium Range Long Range
28"
> LVC/4 14" 23"
32"
> Damage
See my comments to the rationales below. I'd use the same chit validities as
the GMSs.
> Against Infantry: : Red Chits
> Since the antiarmour effect comes from a
I don't agree that the LVC warheads would need to be significantly
smaller than missile warheads - not for the GMS/L at least, and the
GMS/H draws 5 chits to the 4 for an LVC/4 already.
In addition, GMSs should probably be OTA (ie, hit the top armour) -
virtually all the new GMSs under development or recently deployed today are,
and it'll be tricky to reinforce the roof significantly. (It is possible to
build OTA cannon projectiles as well, but then you *would* get significant
reductions in warhead size so I'm not sure you'd gain much from it.) Of
course, the high number of chits for GMSs may be considered to reflect OTA
capability already if you feel like it <g>
The big drawback for CE warheads compared to KE in the future is likely to be
point defences. CE rounds tend to be slow (due to the
shape limitations imposed by the shape of the warhead ) - Mach 2 or
thereabouts, which is roughly the claimed upper limit for what the PDS systems
deployed today can engage with at least some success. Future PDSs are likely
to be able to engage faster threats, but unless the laws of aerodynamics
change I don't think we'll be able to fire CE
rounds at much higher velocities :-/
I don't think ADS would be that useful against direct-fire rounds fired
against other vehicles than the ADS one - unless the rounds are OTA
they'd usually go too low to give the ADS lines of sight against them.
A relatively simple game mechanic for PDS defence vs gun-fired CE
rounds could be to give the target a secondary die based on its PDS
quality - Basic 1D6, Enhanced 1D8, Superior 1D10, shifted up by one die
if the target is also in cover. ADS mounted on the target vehicle could give
the same level of protection as a PDS of the same quality, but
that'd count as one anti-"GMS" for ADS overload purposes.
> Since the whole point
> DFFG, and I can justify this by saying the LVC has a special AP shell
Sensitive fuzing sounds pretty much like the Bofors 40mm 3P round, but
that one is fired from a high-pressure weapon (the Bofors 40mm/70
cannon; RFAC/2 in DSII terms).
The greater HE loads explanation works very well compared to railguns, but
HVCs would be able to fire the same types of rounds as if they were LVC (by
using less propellant than normal HVC rounds do, so you get the same pressures
and accelerations). The difference between HVC and LVC would then be that HVC
can use KE against armour, so ignores the target's PDS.
> I'm not real sure about the points, just looking at it it seems less
Sounds reasonable.
Best wishes,