Has anyone come up with a genric rule regarding the use of barbed/razor
wire as obstacles for DS2? What about WW2 "Dragon Teeth" type tank obstacles?
My inclination for DS2 scale games would be that they automatically stop
movement when advancing into contact with the obstacle (and they are NOT
allowed to then fire), but that the infantry units attempting to cross may
continue moving in their next turn. This would simulate the use of bangalore
torpedo type weapons and the effect of checking movement and making them a
nice target for the defenders for a turn. Dragon Teeth would be impassable but
may be blown by sappers simialr to building demolition.
Any comments/suggestions ?
Paul
----------
> From: Brian Bell <Brian.Bell@axom.com>
On Tue, 17 Feb 1998, Paul O'Grady was heard querying:
> Has anyone come up with a genric rule regarding the use of
My gaming group had a scenario a while ago in which a firebase was being
attacked by infantry, and and armoured force was trying to fight thru to
relieve the firebase. The scenario started to go strange when the enemy
infantry simply overran the firebase the first turn, with little the firebase
commander (hi Neil) could do. After the game, we were talking
about some sort of wire/tank trap idea for DS2, rather like what you've
got here...
> My inclination for DS2 scale games would be that they automatically
This looks good - and provides people with a pressing reason to get
engineering troops out onto the field. The demolition-by-engineers rule
could apply to wire as well, maybe - making commanders choose who gets
machine-gunned whilst mucking around in the wire, your regular infantry
or your engineering inf.
Dragon's teeth and wire could be, in points-based defense battles,
bought
- say 75pts for 6" of wire, 100pts/6" of dragons teeth? (purely off the
cuff costs - but I'd say that 600 meters of wire is worth as much as a
standard APC, no?)
Otherwise, scenarios would specify the amount of wire/teeth available,
and maybe where it is set up (eg Defenders get 18" of wire; at least 6" must
be within 400m (4") of FireBase X...)
Actually, instead of dragon's teeth, just call them 'anti-tank
obstacles'
- covers teeth, ditches, roadblocks of various sorts, etc...
How about in-game deployment of wire/teeth? (mostly wire, or only
wire...)
Say 6" of wire takes 2 turns to deploy by regular infantry, or 1 turn w/
engineers; takes up 8 cargo spaces; cannot be deployed by units under fire;
cannot be deployed by engineering vehicles, only inf; etc...Coupled with the
existing rules for fast entrenchments, you can produce a fairly
secure firebase in two or three game turns - maybe too fast?
Enough wire could make things very, very nasty - imagine trying to close
to close-assault troops entrenched behind two or three lines of wire,
out
to about 4-6" from the trench-front...can we all say 'WW1', kiddies?
Wire/teeth rules would need to have wire-vs-tank rules and
wire-vs-arty/DFO rules - what happens to a razor-wire line when a group
of Size 5 GEV panzers cruise through or a battery of medium artillery drops a
converged sheaf load on it? (Teeth would be unaffected, I'd think - for
fairly obvious reasons...) Don't forget what tanks were originally made
for - wire-busting (at least in part)...WW1 again...
How do other, historical micro-armour games handle wire/teeth? Could
those rules just be plagarized and dropped straight into DS2? (for house rules
only, of course, copyright being what it is)
I'm just throwing these ideas off...feel free to hack them
up/critique/hate them/love them...esp. the last :)...
> At 12:29 2/17/98, Paul O'Grady wrote:
My inclination is about 25 degrees off center.:)
> movement when advancing into contact with the obstacle (and they are
Well, the way I see it, barbed wire would be ignored by vehicles, and dragon
teeth would be ignored by foot soldiers (although, if densely sown, they could
count as cover, ne?) One could certainly sow both together... with mines, if
you're feeling like annoying the sappers.
These defenses would be totally ignored by grav vehicles (fly over) and PA
troopers (unless it's monofilament wire). And a DFFG or two would certainly
vaporize wire and melt mines, if you could just get that armor officer to lend
his firepower to your footsloggers for a round or two....
Something else that bears consideration: tank traps. Big pits would slow down
about anything but (again)grav vehicles and PA troopers.
> At 18:27 2/16/98, Brian Burger wrote:
> This looks good - and provides people with a pressing reason to get
JagdPanzer (WWII microarmor) has a formula for clearing obstacles: each
obstacle has a rating, and various units have clearance factors. The more
units/greater number of factors applied, the sooner the breach.
Frankly, this seems like a bit much. I'd tend towards the standard engineering
demolition rolls for wire (eng spends its combat action in contact with
something, at the end of the turn, that something explodes) and assuming it's
not 'nasty' wire (monofilament, electrified, local cable TV monopoly) regular
infantry could clear it by spending 2 combat actions... provided they're not
under fire.
> Dragon's teeth and wire could be, in points-based defense battles,
I dunno.... an APC can take the fight to the enemy, the wire is totally
passive. Maybe it's worth it to you, but I can't see spending that much on it.
> Otherwise, scenarios would specify the amount of wire/teeth available,
must
> be within 400m (4") of FireBase X...)
Another JagdPanzer rule: if the player who controls a particular location has
engineers assigned to that location can *before the game* may "create of
reinforce his entrenchments". I'm assuming this would work like the DSII
engineering function Create Hasty Defences (p.45). but possibly allow for
better cover, or somesuch. Probably a good case for a scenario specific rule.
> Actually, instead of dragon's teeth, just call them 'anti-tank
But you'd need to distinguish how they work... with Grav, GEV, wheeled and
tracked mobility types some defences are going to affect only some vehicle
types.
> How about in-game deployment of wire/teeth? (mostly wire, or only
etc...Coupled
> with the existing rules for fast entrenchments, you can produce a
That does seem a bit much. 'Hasty Defenses' seems adequate for engineering
during combat, anything else would take time and efforts that could hardly be
performed under fire. I can't see putting up wire under direct attack.. what's
the point?... but I'm sure this has happened *somewhere* in history. Anyone
got an example? Any SeaBees vets?
> Enough wire could make things very, very nasty - imagine trying to
Ah, but this is the future! Drop RAM artillery on 'em, send DFFG grav tanks
over the wire with PA wading through the wire (or bouncing over) up behind
them. Of course for underarmed militia vs. restless natives type scenarios, it
would fit in quite well.
> Wire/teeth rules would need to have wire-vs-tank rules and
The trick is, can we come up with something that works well without bogging
the system down too much?
> How do other, historical micro-armour games handle wire/teeth? Could
Notes from JagdPanzer are above.... I'm too lazy to root through PanzerBlitz
at the moment. Maybe tomorrow. Just out of curiousity, how does the Evil
Empire's latest incarnation of the epic rules handle this?
Renegade Legion Centurion has 'digging charges' carried by many APCs,
engineering vehicles and fired by arty mission which create instant hard
cover...craters big enough to allow grav vehicles and troops to go
hull-down. Nothing I could find in the rule book about wire or
fortifications.
> I'm just throwing these ideas off...feel free to hack them
Personally, I don't think human engineers will have any place on the
futuristic battlefield becasue AI engineering systems will be able to
outperform them in every way.... errr.....sorry. Still channeling the fighter
combat thread.:)
> My inclination for DS2 scale games would be that they automatically
> making them a nice target for the defenders for a turn. Dragon Teeth
Or you could charge one activation by that unit to cross the wire or 2 to
cross and clear the wire (make a hole in the line).
> Wire/teeth rules would need to have wire-vs-tank rules and
How about these suggestions:
Wheeled** Tracked GEV*** Grav
Size 1 as Infantry Ignores* Difficult Ignores*
Size 2 Difficult Clears Poor Ignores*
Size 3 Ignores* Clears Poor Ignores*
Size 4 Ignores* Clears Clears Ignores*
Size 5+ Clears Clears Clears Ignores*
* If the AFV Parks on the wire Infantry may cross on top of the vechicle as 1"
poor terrain.
** Assumes Size 2+ Wheeled vehicles use High Density/Bulet Proof/ATV
tires.
** Assumes GEV is using spring steel skirts. If it has rubber/cloth
skirts, it moves as infantry.
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
your also assuming that you can't seige, just ring him up in all those nice
defences and wait and see who run out of food, not a very nice way to wage
war, but are there really any nice ways:)
> Well, the way I see it, barbed wire would be ignored by vehicles, and
A full defence would include obstacles and wire to channelize infantry and
vehicles, covered by arcs of fire from units including support weapons,
interspersed with mines to prevent obstacle clearance and to destroy
aggressive vehicles or personel. CDMs to provide a last ditch close in shock
to any assaulting troops, with mortars and other short range company level
support assets to destroy the attacker while they move through the obstacles,
mines, and infantry fire. Once you start considering the multipliers in force
that a well laid defence gives, you realize that attackers often need their
3:1 odds and good arty prep and air support in order to have any chance of
success.
> These defenses would be totally ignored by grav vehicles (fly over)
and PA
> troopers (unless it's monofilament wire). And a DFFG or two would
DFFG wouldn't vaporize buried mines, and I'm assuming DFFG has ammo
considerations preventing its use as a broom. Hence it could clear paths, but
its still subject to side attacking mines. Also, I could
see implanting a form of rocket/mine that reacted to such sweeping
attempts and homed in on the source of the DFFG with an anti-armour
missile. Sticky wire would be bad for PA, and if properly anchored for
vehicles that move through it. And is a field of nuclearly melted muck
something you plan on advancing even PA through? I wonder. What about
obstacles with a cheap ablative coating that makes them resistant to this kind
of attack?
(What I'm saying is if we research things, I think we'll find obstacles are
progressing as fast as other tech so they'll still be around, we just need to
figure out what form).
> Something else that bears consideration: tank traps. Big pits would
I think PA might be slowed down too. Or a big enough pit could drop in a grav
vehicle. What about a pit filled with monomolecular tipped spikes that could
punch through PA (bengal tiger trap made modern)? What about a buried device
that goes off and kills the electronics in PA or in vehicles? (they have these
now for use by police to kill engines and end high speed chases).
Another interesting point I haven't see anyone take is the Grav Tanks vs.
Tracklayers or ACV. You say "But grav are better! They can fly!" Anyone who
ever did Striker or Striker II vehicle design for Traveller will remember this
classic dilemna. Do I armour four sides (or five if you count the top)
heavily, or do I add that sixth side (the bottom) where I won't have any
weapons bearing, but I'll still have to carry an extra weight of armour if I'm
going to fly around and fight. I think a Grav vehicle (by virtue of having to
armour six
sides roughly equally - only good sense, maybe more on the front and
turret) will have a lower average level of armour than a similar tech
tracklayer or ACV. Also I think any of these would be susceptible to
a buried straight-up firing armour piercing missile-mine. Also can
you say Grav Mines? If I can pack grav electronics into a tank, why not into a
mine? A grav pulse could slam grav vehicles into the
ground by increasing gravity or cancelling their anti-grav fields.
Ouch. Or Anti-Grav field seeking missiles? Oooh, too bad for the grav
vehicles.....
Opinions?
/************************************************
> On Tue, 17 Feb 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
As far as the game is concerned, it depends on the terrain. Since grav
vehicles can't enter woods, tracked vehicles have an advantage in heavily
forested terrain.
> On Tue, 17 Feb 1998, Brian Bell wrote:
> > My inclination for DS2 scale games would be that they automatically
You're thinking of SG2 - units in DS2 only have one 'combat action',
plus
moving - so they can fire & move, or do an engineering action and not
move, or whatever...
I'd say that stopping movement on the wire then continuing the next turn
(without a hole made) makes sense for regular troops; stopping at the wire and
spending the entire next turn there (leaving a hole) would work for
engineering troops.
> > Wire/teeth rules would need to have wire-vs-tank rules and
This looks good - takes into account the varied sizes of vehicles. I
like the bit about AFVs parking on wire and acting as a bridge for
infantry...if grav vehicles do that - stop on the wire - I'd say they
leave a gap after they move on.
This is a good thread - lots of great (and some very nasty) ideas out
there...
> Jim wrote:
[on razor wire]
> Just out of curiousity, how does
Just a sec...
...found it:
"Razorwire may not be crossed by vehicles or infantry who are marching or
assaulting [in both cases moving full speed]. War engines [ie,
over-sized
nasties], skimmers, flyers and troops with jump packs can move over razorwire
without penalty." (E40K Battles Book, p.14)
Troops need to be "assaulting" to move into close combat in E40K. These rules
are basically the same as in Space Marine (although there were no "march"
orders in the old rules).
Later,
> On Tue, 17 Feb 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> > Well, the way I see it, barbed wire would be ignored by vehicles,
CDMs don't exist in DS2 - not in the stock rules, anyway. However, to
set something like this up in SG2, they're vital...
> provide a last ditch close in shock to any assaulting troops, with
Ouch, ouch ouch...we're getting into WW1 here...thing to do w/ someone
who
lavishes this much care onto his fortifications is to bypass them - use
orbital-inserted PI to land in his rear area, swing around and outflank
his forts w/ fast armour, use air-mobile assets to again hit his rear,
etc. Think Magaino (sp!) Line, and the advance thru the Ardennes by the
Germans...
> > These defenses would be totally ignored by grav vehicles (fly over)
and PA
> > troopers (unless it's monofilament wire). And a DFFG or two would
DFFGs and direct-fire weapons don't destroy minefields - but artillery
attacks do - just set up an open sheaf mission on top of those
minefields, then send in the engineers to clear the rest after the arty clears
the
mines...or use those direct-fire weapons on the wire/tank traps, and the
arty on the mines.
High-tech 'sticky-wire' sounds interesting - maybe have a couple kinds
of
wire, from 'old-style' steel/alloy razorwire, then exotic-materials
'wire' (Hammer's Slammers has 'berilium (sp) netting'), up to 'sticky' or
'smart' wire - imagine nano-tech wire that moves to grab and cut units
moving into its range - nasty...
> (What I'm saying is if we research things, I think we'll find
Stationary defences are always going to be important _somewhere_, even
if
not everywhere. Choke-points, vital bridges or crossroads, perimeters -
even simple PoW/refugee camps...the technology used will progress along
with the times, although probably slower - barbed wire is still fairly
unchanged from ww1, razor wire is newer but not as widespread...
> > Something else that bears consideration: tank traps. Big pits would
If you're going to bury a device, why not make it a standard minefield?
Just wax the sucker, don't get fancy...besides, a big ECM-mine might
muck up your electronics too, if they're too close...
Regarding pits - in DS2 scale, 1" = 100 meters - that's either a _very_
large pit, or it's not worth digging - it just won't show up at DS2's
level of terrain detail...for SG2, though...I like the idea of
monomolecular-spiked tiger-traps...high-tech Viet Cong?
> Another interesting point I haven't see anyone take is the Grav Tanks
You pay more for grav drives in dirtside, so I guess that could be your extra
bit of armour as well as the drives? (Never thought of it)
The Jumping Mines of DS2 attack anything, including VTOLs in Low Mode...so
there's already a missle-mine thing...
Personally, I'd avoid specialty anti-grav weapons as too inflexible - I
don't field grav units, none of my opponents do, so I'd rather have stock
mines and stock missles that can hunt down anything I want to aim them
at...if I face someone fielding grav forces, a GMS/L inf team will work
just as well on his grav-panzers as on my regular opponents tracked and
ACV AFVs...Grav-specific weaponry would be heavily background dependant
-
in a 'stock' DS2 game, its of limited utility, if you're playing
RenLeg-DS2, it's vital - everyone has grav tanks.
One thing I've been thinking of, for DS2 - as I read the rules,
minefields have IFF abilities, so if you want to move one of your own units
through
your minefield, you can. This leads to interesting implications -
'offensive' minesowing, probably via artillery. Want to stop an advance down a
road, but don't want to or can't get troops there fast? Drop a minefield or
three...Mine the insides of your own compounds to chop up intruders and drop
troops, but you can conduct normal ops...this depends
on your level of command & control, of course - does _everyone_ have an
IFF unit _all the time?_ Even w/ minimal IFF, offensive mining has its
uses, out in the field...Hold up enemy advances long enough to
re-inforce
a sector...Thoughts or comments?
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
You forgot to mention preplanned fire support for battalion, division, or
corps assets, or from other services i.e. Air Force or Orbitial bombardment,
if you've got the accuracy. (8-)
Seriously though, I've found that such setups make really bad game scenarios,
unless you're replaying World War I, Western Front. Otherwise, you would need
extremely compelling reasons to attack a defence like that head on,
whatever the odds are.
Much more likely are hasty defences where you toss up some wire, sow some
scatterable mines, work up a real quick fire plan with your Space Naval FSO,
and you pray that the armoured company Brigade promised you shows up.
(8-)
> > Something else that bears consideration: tank traps. Big pits would
One thing that has always confused me about 'monofilament' and 'monomolecular'
type devices; the entire thing has to be monofilament before it'll cut
through, right? Otherwise the thing has a really nice edge, but it won't punch
through anything i.e. monomolecular tipped spikes don't mean anything unless
the
whole thing was monomolecular; which kind of limits the damage you could
produce unless you manage to vent the fusion reactor.
> Another interesting point I haven't see anyone take is the Grav Tanks
Renegade Legion: Centurion covered a lot of this stuff. However the point was
made that Grav Vehicles were the only choice for first-line troops
simply
because they could out-maneuver any other unit other there. But they
were vulnerable to countermeasures that conventional vehicles weren't
vulnerable to.
> Opinions?
Many. Justifiable? A little less than many. (8-)
J.
Brian spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Ouch, ouch ouch...we're getting into WW1 here...thing to do w/ someone
Maginot actually, but I know what you meant. Unspoken assumption: You are
somewhere he can't do that (for example, where he does not possess air or
orbital superiority, or in an alien climate which is not favorable to
operations other than groundpounding, or you are out on the rim and these
sorts of assets aren't available). BTW, if PA drop troops are elite assets,
then risking them in a high ADE insertion is not cost effective. Until you've
surpressed ADE, they may not be worth inserting even given they may strike
lighter defences.
> DFFGs and direct-fire weapons don't destroy minefields - but artillery
Assuming the enemy doesn't employ counterbattery on you as you try to take out
the mines. It might be a risk to use your arty assets this way, or too time
consuming, or you might not have them, or the environment may not allow. But
if you can, great. Or use a CEV with a mineclearing charge like the US used in
the gulf war.
> High-tech 'sticky-wire' sounds interesting - maybe have a couple kinds
That's one I'll remember!
> Stationary defences are always going to be important _somewhere_, even
Soft fleshy people haven't changed much either, so it still works.
> If you're going to bury a device, why not make it a standard
True. But if you remember that radiated power falls off as a cube of radius,
you'll realize the danger drops off real fast from this type of threat so it
could be quite a viable AV weapon. And it may be a lot smaller than a standard
mine or conceivably more effective since conventional armour might not stop
it....
> Regarding pits - in DS2 scale, 1" = 100 meters - that's either a
Exactly. A Monofilament Nail Extruder or something industrial could
produce these spikes for your high-tech (but poorly equiped in a
military sense) rebels and insurgents.
> The Jumping Mines of DS2 attack anything, including VTOLs in Low
Didn't know that. Thanks.
> Personally, I'd avoid specialty anti-grav weapons as too inflexible -
Exactly. If grav vehicles are common, grav countermeasures are cost effective.
> One thing I've been thinking of, for DS2 - as I read the rules,
Nasty. Hope your arty boys program the latest IFF codes into the mines....
(Note that this might cause effectiveness problems because most IFF are query
response as I understand it and if the mine queried and enemy vehicle might
well reverse course or set of a reactve charge or something (I don't know what
exactly) to counter the mine before it fired). And you wouldn't want to be the
LRRP that came in after being out in the boonies a month when they'd changed
the minefield IFF a week ago..... (ouch!)
Tom.
Jerry spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> You forgot to mention preplanned fire support for battalion, division,
Of course! Heck, if you don't need the real estate, crack the core and be done
with it....
> Seriously though, I've found that such setups make really bad game
Good simulation, not so good for 'gaming'. Base assaults can be fun as long as
the attacker has a goodly force and expects casualties galore.
> > spikes that could punch through PA (bengal tiger trap made modern)?
One: You probably have a lot of electronics, motors, and yes a power plant too
that can be damaged (and life support and comms and countermeasures). Two:
Ever cut through a coconut or spiked one? You use the tip of the spike to get
you started and through the hard part.... Now, I'll admit you need a fairly
strong, narrow spike with a good compression strength, but this would be a
commonplace type of item (I'd think) in high tech construction tools. Or it
could be made easily with a monofilament extruder. Remember too that most PA
probably has surface hardening. Once you've bypassed the face hardening, the
armour is probably easier to penetrate. So the monomolecular tip gets you that
start and then you punch the rest of the way through with the wider body. For
extra nastiness add CB agents.....or poison...or nanites. How about an arty
round that drops a cloud of small nanites hostile to PA? Ouch! goodbye PA....
(aka How to Make Mice out of Space Marines)
> Renegade Legion: Centurion covered a lot of this stuff. However the
> > Opinions?
Good thoughts. Looking forward to seeing you at the Con in Lancaster (If I'm
right you'll be there?)
Tom.
> High-tech 'sticky-wire' sounds interesting - maybe have a couple kinds
Or Flatwire (similar to monowire but 1 molecule wide x 10 deep x length
of wire) that has a dual-state memory (triggered by an electrical
charge). Flatwire has the advantage of being more managible than monowire, but
almost as deadly. You run into a stretch of coiled flatwire and call in the
engineers. While the engineers are removing it someone flips a switch and the
wire suddenly recoils from clockwise to counter clockwise! Everyone in the
area has a BAD day.
> Regarding pits - in DS2 scale, 1" = 100 meters - that's either a
Or with grids of monowire.
> Another interesting point I haven't see anyone take is the Grav Tanks
What is the maximum operating height of a Grav Vehicle? I would suggest
anything over 2m must be costed as a VTOL. I know that Grav Vehicles can jump
small trees in SG2, but not in DS2. At 2m or less, bottom armor may not be as
important.
> Jerry Han wrote:
> Seriously though, I've found that such setups make really bad game
Funny, if you are a proponent of manuever theory, (Real manuever theory not
the thinly veiled attrition based theory that the we in the US practice), then
a set piece battle by definition, is a failure in your operational manuever.
> One thing that has always confused me about 'monofilament' and
The monofillament route is probably a good obstacle for Grav and skimmers.
> [quoted text omitted]
> On Tue, 17 Feb 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> Brian spake thusly upon matters weighty:
AFAIK, ADE doesn't affect PA - they come in too damned fast and hard for
any practical interception...Either way, I see what you mean about these
assets being unavailable - in low-level/low-tech theatres, barbed wire
and trenches are going to be more effective and harder to counter than a
high-tech, well supported theatre. If I can't just drop PA on top of
your fortifications, you're going to be building more fortifications...
> > DFFGs and direct-fire weapons don't destroy minefields - but
I forgot to include CEVs - I was just dealing w/ arty mineclearing.
Combat
engineers clearing minefields is lower-tech and easier, but they can be
shot up while doing it...
And counter-battery fire is much harder against off-table assets - and
given the cost of a C-Batt Radar, they're going to be very rare - I know
I have never used one...
> > High-tech 'sticky-wire' sounds interesting - maybe have a couple
Glad you like it...it's beyond the general tech-level of 'stock' DS2,
tho,
and that of most military-SF...
> > Stationary defences are always going to be important _somewhere_,
Hadn't thought of the amount of drop-off - maybe an ECM AV mine is
viable
- care to work up some stats for DS2 and SG2 and post them? I recall
reading somewhere about a US arty shell, present day, called a
"Jabberwocky" - drop it in the enemy's rear area, it starts broadcasting
ECM jamming to screw up the communication nets...just bury one of them, you
have your ECM mine...
Anything that bypasses armour is good, after all - providing you're
using it on the other side...
> > Regarding pits - in DS2 scale, 1" = 100 meters - that's either a
Interesting, and very nasty...
> > The Jumping Mines of DS2 attack anything, including VTOLs in Low
If the LRRPs know of the minefield, they're going to know the IFF codes
change randomly - they'd call in and get the new codes, hopefully...
And even if the enemy does realize the existance of the mines, it doesn't
matter - they'll have accomplished the goal of slowing the enemy down.
Whether they move to go around the mines, move arty up to shell them, or move
engineering assets up to neutralize them, the advance is stalled or
slowed - buying you time to get a counterattack or better defences in
place...and if the enemy simply moves forces thru the minefields,
accepting the losses, so much the better - the mines are still there, to
cut up his retreat when his weakened column is forced to fall back...The
addition of IFF tech to mines makes them much more useful. Most defences
are as hard for the defender to get out of as the attacker to get in -
not IFF minefields...
(That last sentence sounded like an ad for the damn things, didn't it?
"Buy Delft Armoury's NEW EX-1200 smartmine system - complete protection
for your firebases!!":)
Real World Interupt: What about this mine-banning treaty just signed?
The
Princess Di one? Any chance of it surviving w/o the Yanks on-side? It's
a nice, idealistic document, but...
Later,
ADE does have a limited effect of PA drops in both DS & SG. In DS, any
chits landing off table or difficult terrain count as ADE/lost & in SG
the quality roll when dropping takes this into account.
This sort of fire is rare though (anti-orbital defence batteries) & only
held by specialist units or Regimental level. Orbitally inserting PA would
also throw up a lot of radar chaff from the heatshields & thrusters (or
parachutes depending on tech). Even PA needs to slow down enough to survive
impact (and be shot at). RH's Starship Troopers & Hammer's Slammers: Counting
the Cost give good examples of this.
RE: real world:
> From my understanding, it's only anti-personnel mines that is covered
'Neath Southern Skies
http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
*********************
Mary had a little LAM, It's thrusters all aglow; And everywhere that Mary
went, The 'Mechs were sure to blow.
> -----Original Message-----
The
> Princess Di one? Any chance of it surviving w/o the Yanks on-side? It's
The ban does not cover antitank mines OR command detonated mines like
Claymores.
It's pretty much doctrine of any Western-style Army to cover obstacles
with fire and observation. If you don't they're sort of useless. When a unit
leaves to a new location, they usually take their mines with them.(Unless
somebody shoos them away in a hurry). They don't grow in trees after all.
You get a country like North Korea sitting across the DMZ in a pretty much no
notice assault posture. Of course they're not gonna sign away a major force
multiplier in that circumstance. In any kind of real conevtional style war
like that wouldn't be smart. Especially if you are the snuffy in 1/507th
staring glumly across the DMZ.
Sort of reminds me of thae argument about how safe we all are now that nuclear
weapons aren't targetted at anyone any more. Wow it takes like 30 seconds to
reporgramme targets into one of those things. Looks good on TV though when the
politicains are saying how safe we all are. WHatever.....
Los
> ROBERTSON,Brendan wrote:
> RE: real world:
More
> than 90% of anti-personnel mine casualties are actually the local
Two, two, two replies in one!
> Los wrote:
Or a circumstance where your goals are inseparably tied together with a
terrain objective. (Maneuver theory don't mean a damn if you can't maneuver.
The Germans learned this the hard way in Big Mistake
2.)
You would need extremely compelling reasons to attack a defence like that, but
the reasons do exist. World War I is an example, simply because there was no
flank to drive around, no means of achieving the goal required without blowing
a bloody hole in the defences of the enemy. The Pacific War also has examples
of this type of fighting; Okinawa and Iwo Jima are
just the last examples. (Hell, Olympic and Coronet, if they had gone off,
would be the ultimate examples; get off the boat, plant your feet in the dirt,
and beat the enemy until the enemy capitulates.)
Ugly, but then war is ugly. You'd think we'd learn to do things a different
way by now.
> From a different message, but Los wrote:
Amen. I was actually thinking of a Canadian Peacekeeper trying to keep stay
live while keeping two extremely heavily armed opponenets apart. Or any
situation where there's you, your buddy, and fifty of the bad guys charging at
you.
Indiscriminate land mine use is bad; no doubts about that. But everytime I
think of the fact that there are no anti-personal land mines available
in the Canadian Armed Forces, I think of the Princess Pats and Kapyong...
J.
> Jerry Han wrote:
> One thing that has always confused me about 'monofilament' and
Most fishing lines (...is that the English word for the thing between the rod
and the hook?) I've seen are monofilament wires. While you can use them for
strangling people or cutting their heads off (if you're strong enough),
I'm not too convinced about cutting up tanks with them :-)
'Monomolecular' devices has a cutting edge one molecule thin. This is
extremely sharp, and therefore has an easier time cutting through things. The
rest of the device (blade, thread, whatever) does not need to be as thin; if
they're not, they'll act as a wedge in a crack instead. The thinner the wedge
is the easier the slicing will be, of course.
Later,
Los spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> The ban does not cover antitank mines OR command detonated mines like
Good thing too. CDMs are an important part of defence of a position.
> Sort of reminds me of thae argument about how safe we all are now that
OTOH, isn't that a strictly technical answer? I suspect due to the politics
and policy issues and the bureacracy involved in such a retargeting and the
number of confirms etc that this is more than a 30 second task. However, I
assume these weapons aren't 'targetless' just differently tasked.
Additionally, if we assume US had Russia targeted 40x over, retasking 39x
leaves 1x still targetted.... enought to make a bad day for anyone on the
receiving end....
(In short, I agree with you. I think retargeting is more than a political
move, but I also think the idea that a unified USSR was
more of a threat is a questionable one - Do I fear the large,
predictable (mostly) Red Bear with the bomb who has a lot to lose if
he starts a war, or do I fear 100 little Red/Blue/White/Green/?
Bearlets that each have some bombs and a lot less to lose and a lot less
experience in governance or international power plays..... I think the answer
is the latter).
/************************************************
> AFAIK, ADE doesn't affect PA - they come in too damned fast and hard
Note that a Phalanx can stop (or deflect and damage) a 16 inch shell from a
Battleship, so I don't think this will be true, esp with lightspeed weapons.
(And I'm told the games take this into account to one extent or another)
> > True. But if you remember that radiated power falls off as a cube of
> > radius, you'll realize the danger drops off real fast from this type
> > of threat so it could be quite a viable AV weapon. And it may be a
> > conventional armour might not stop it....
I will do that. ECM, EP, and AG (electronic pulse and anti grav) mines and
arty. God, I've got so many ideas (Non violent weapons for peacekeeping,
MegaTraveller conversions, stealthy movement, going IP when fired upon as a
reaction.....) that getting them all sensibly put on paper and out is a trial.
But I like this one so much I'm going to do something with it (that and sticky
wire, nanites (arty,
mine, and static counter measure) and monowire/flatwire).
> And even if the enemy does realize the existance of the mines, it
My only point here is it places a great dependence on the IFF transmitter. You
need to have a personally portable one to do this with AP mines (and then I'd
be developing smartguns or smartrounds to take down people wearing these). I
think your approach is pragmatic for vehicles and AV mines however.
/************************************************
> Jerry Han wrote:
> >From a different message, but Los wrote:
TWIMC, Indiscriminate land mine use, let me think... PLO, Kymer rouge (?),
African National Congress, IRA, and most any communist backed Peoples
Liberation Army is going to stop using this weapon or sign a treaty to not to
that effect? While the ROK army is very good and really mean, the north has a
VERY large army and it is NOT starving to death dispite
what the press is reporting. If the minefields are removed
from Taiwan and S. Korea those countries will cease to exist in very short
order.
Just an opinion.
Bye for now,
> At 17:02 2/18/98, Brian Burger wrote:
The
> Princess Di one? Any chance of it surviving w/o the Yanks on-side? It's
The latest Soldier of Fortune magazine came up with about the same summation:
'Gosh what a nice idea, but none of the world's largest
mine-producing or using nations have signed on. Oh, and lets not forget
that it would take the worlds demo tech well into the next century just to
clear out the ones already out there....'
Nasty as they may be, I seriously doubt they're going anywhere. Except for
the self-mobile types....
On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 19:38:14 -0600, jfoster@kansas.net (Jim 'Jiji'
> Foster) wrote:
> The latest Soldier of Fortune magazine came up with about the same
The mine ban treaty was more political than anything else. In the case of two
countries at war with each other, neither is going to stop
using anti-personnel mines. In cases where two nations have defended
borders but aren't necessarily nasty to each other, this treaty will
let both forces pull up or stop deploying anti-personnel mines,
whereas a bilateral treaty between the two nations is unlikely. Finally, it
should allow the UN to impose sanctions on nations that start purchasing mines
later, such as in the case of a nation that's government has been overthrown
by a military dictatorship.
The treaty isn't a be-all and end-all decision. Little is where
diplomacy is concerned. This is really just a first step, and as such it's a
good one.
One thing about the American decision not to sign it is that the US has
managed to hurt its standing on the world stage. While the US may think of
itself as the world's policeman, other countries (in particular Canada, which
was the nation that pushed the treaty) have gained some stature in the Third
World. This won't help the US' image in peacekeeping especially after the
Somalia debacle.
And there's always the possibility of Canada or other countries using this as
a diplomatic chit when asked to sign another treaty later.
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> One thing about the American decision not to sign it is that the US
If everyone else in the world signs the treaty but the US it will still be a
positive thing. We're not the ones exporting the vast majority of these mines
anyway. Or how about amending the treaty to say no mines may be exported to
other countries? It makes a short term solution admittedly, but that is the
real problem. It's not like it's the US, UK, France etc that's going around
planting these mines.
It's true that we've been hurt somewhat on the world stage by this, (And our
stupid hockey team hasn't helped much either <g>). However that loss of
stature seems to be forgotten when theres a real crisis involving force.
(Bosnia, Iraq invading Kuwait etc). Then you have all these countires pissing
and monaing but not really doing much about it either becasue they're
unwilling to politically, or because they don't have the power. Suddenly
everyone becomes our friend again. It's sort of like a microcosim of a
soldier's life in general. Most of the time everyone despises you." Oh look at
that GI, probably joined because he couldn't get a job elsewhere", or what a
bunch of thick headed right wingers" blah blah, but then it's "thin red line
o' heroes" when the shit begins the fly. It's really quite amusing....
Stature's fine and dandy but power is what really counts in the thick.
> On Sun, 22 Feb 1998 10:25:38 -0500, Los <los@cris.com> wrote:
> If everyone else in the world signs the treaty but the US it will still
Quite right. I like your "no export" idea. It would force countries to show if
they care about mines or money.
> It's true that we've been hurt somewhat on the world stage by this,
Our hockey team didn't do much better, either!
> However that loss of stature
(Bosnia, Iraq
> invading Kuwait etc). Then you have all these countires pissing and
That certainly happened in 1991. It's not happening now. Even in 1991, the US
asked for help from other nations. They're doing the same now but it's been
even harder for the US to get people on their side. So far it's Britain and
Canada and precious few others, with some
countries--like France and Russia--openly against it. More countries
are distancing themselves from the US this time around than trying to be their
friend.
> BTW re: Canada and Somalia. Geez, wasn't it your paras that got the axe
No, they got the axe for torturing and KILLING a civilian. There were some
other incidents as well. On the other hand, it was US Rangers that tried to
kill some of Aidid's henchmen with missile fire into a hotel, killing more
moderates than radicals. This set up for the heavy handed capture of Aidid's
lieutenants that ended with 18 Rangers and Delta Force dead, 73 wounded, with
as many as 500 Somalis killed and over a thousand wounded. Of course, you
Americans always do things on a bigger scale than us...
> On the other hand, it was US Rangers
The US is just not good at "wet" operations. This is why there is still that
person in Iraq.
> [quoted text omitted]
This thread is getting off topic. I suggest that the thread be taken private
or dropped
> [quoted text omitted]
> Allan Goodall wrote:
...Snip...(JTL)
> Finally, it should allow the UN to impose sanctions on nations that
...Snip...(JTL)
> One thing about the American decision not to sign it is that the US
Allan, It is rather unlikely that the UN will impose sanctions on
a country that is not a signatory of the treaty. It is also
unlikely that the faction that overthrows a goverment that is a signatory of
the treaty will consider itself a signatory of the
treaty or a continuation of the same goverment. The 'NEW'
goverment or nation may ask to sign or not sign the treaty at its whim. Most
of the UN votes show our standing in the world, we have none. We do not
consider ourselves the 'policeman to the world', only the believers in 'The
New World Order' support that. (Try looking up to find the one who originated
'The New World Order' as
a social program. Folks in the U.S.A. have enough problems at
home. Not a bad idea, hae some of the people who have gained stature go out
and try to 'peacekeep' (and pay the operatonal bills) for Bosnia, Haiti, and
the others. It would be interesting to see just how much stature could be
retained after a few operations.
Bye for now,
> Allan Goodall wrote:
...Snip...(JTL)
This set up for the heavy
> handed capture of Aidid's lieutenants that ended with 18 Rangers and
Allan, It is possible that the troops would have done better if they had
gotten the equipment they had requested, But this was a political
operation outside the original mission statement. The troops were
not trained for 'police' work, and the command underestimated the enemy.
Result, a high and unnecessary body count on both sides.
bye for now,
As an aside to the Canadian para thing, I thought it was ridiculous that
Canada would choose to disband a capability over that incident. Wouldn't
punishing the perpetrators have been enough? It sort of like us removing all
A6 squadrons from the inventory because of what happened in Italy.
I know that the Canadians managed to get around the disbanding of the para bn
(or was it a regt.?) by creating independent para companies. Is that how they
did it?
> Brian Bell wrote:
OK by me. JTL
Brian,
Have you lost about 15 designs thru the move? I think I
may have a copy of the 207 list. I made the copy about two
to three weeks prior to the change.
Bye for now,
> At 22:46 2/21/98, Allan Goodall wrote:
As I understand it, the Canadians threw out the whole chit idea, and now use a
percentile table.:D
On Sun, 22 Feb 1998 18:29:27 -0600, jfoster@kansas.net (Jim 'Jiji'
> Foster) wrote:
> As I understand it, the Canadians threw out the whole chit idea, and
Ah, a voice of reason! Actually, this is turning into an interesting
discussion. I'll reply to John and Los by e-mail. Anyone else want in,
let me know and I'll cc.
> Los wrote:
We called it a Regiment, but I do think it was a large battalion in size (not
more than a thousand men or so), certainly not built like
an Armoured Cav. Regiment stateside. (Somebody with Reg Force
experience may want to correct me here as to the actual established strength.)
Yes, Canadian Reg Force Regiments are now required to provide support for
'jump companies' within each regiment. Each company is formally located within
the TO&E of the home regiment, but I don't know how they're supposed to be
used pratically.
(Hell, I'm not sure DND knows... (8-/)
J.
On Sun, 22 Feb 1998 13:29:47 -0800, John Leary <realjtl@sj.bigger.net>
wrote:
> It is possible that the troops would have done better if they
I totally agree. When I read about the Mogadishu raid, the first thing I
thought was, "Hummers? They're sending in Hummers?!? Where the hell are the
Bradleys? If there was any mission that the Bradley was tailored for, that was
it! I can't believe the Secretary of Defense. He was the one that turned down
the Bradleys.
The mistake was entirely one of political interference. I apologize if it
sounded as though I was slamming the Rangers and Delta Force. The mistake was
a political one. Once again US troops bore the brunt of a political mistake. I
think that the US needs to adopt a political
officer position in its ranks. Take a politician--preferably a senator
or a congressman--and make him or her a lieutenant with the job of
observing the carnage. I'd be willing to bet that the mission scope creep and
improper equipment deployment would cease to be a problem...
> I wrote:
I totally agree. When I read about the Mogadishu raid, the first thing I
thought was... etc.
Sorry guys, that was supposed to go to e-mail.
Just for the record:
I'm sure the Somalia intervention had good intentions, if it was not well
thought out, and despite the poor preparation (in some ways) of many of the
troops participating. The consequences of a lack of direction or a lack of
adequate understanding of the nature of the situation have lead us to the
situation of today. People would like to set that at the feet of the American
government, but the UN is also to blame. And (although I personally have
served in the CF and respect many of its members), I have met paras from 1, 2,
and 3 CDO and the CAR before. It doesn't really surprise me that they had a
few of the repugnant types that could torture and kill civilians. 99% of that
proud unit are fine people, and 1% are nasty folk. But it only takes 1% and
poor leadership, and a situation far from home in a foreign country to
generate regretable situations. And sociologists
have demonstrated that even good people, under the right/wrong
circumstances, will commit the most awful acts. It doesn't make it right, but
mud slinging is a pointless venture.
And besides, it doesn't have a lot do do with SG2 or DS2. Until the GZG boys
come up with an FMA system that covers the breakdown of discipline in
operations in foreign ground with undertrained and underled and underequiped
troops (which sounds pretty dismally boring and very unlikly), this isn't a
very good thread for the group.
OTOH, figuring out how to effect restrictive ROE on SG2 or DS2 scenarios to
reflect peacekeeping situations is sort of interesting and topical....
Tom.
Los spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> As an aside to the Canadian para thing, I thought it was ridiculous
The fact is it was an entirely political move.
> I know that the Canadians managed to get around the disbanding of the
Some trick like that.
In counterpoint, the parachute regt has been a collecting place for (and I'm
not saying all of them are, just a few percent) violent malcontents in the
ranks and officers with discipline and drinking problems. They have a lot of
'elite' soldiers, but the whole Canadian military is riddled with a command
crisis (pretty much anyone over Lt. Col). There isn't the leadership to handle
the problems and when a problem is systemic, sometimes you have to cut to
cure. Or apply massive radiation. The problem is, its NDHQ they should can
moreso than the units.
The loss of the op cap isn't the issue (Canada? Operations? Only if the US
lends us planes!). It's the fact that the political move was 'disband!' and
the actual result was 'change name!'.
I get really annoyed that good soldiers get so screwed over by our poor and
messed up senior command staff. I've met plenty of good junior officers (Major
and below) who refuse to play politics, refuse to engage in petty behaviour,
aren't totally self absorbed, and as a result get passed over so the paper
pushing, smooth talking, self serving leeches can hob nob their way up the
rank structure. But then, that's just our way up here I guess......
T.
> Allan Goodall wrote:
...Snip...(JTL)
Take a politician--preferably a senator
> or a congressman--and make him or her a lieutenant with the job of
...Snip...(JTL)
Allan, You have a very valid point, but if all else fails, we can shoot them
into space!
Bye for now,