GEV RVs

> GEV RVs:

I'm using air recon and light GEVs for my GEV based fast reaction force.

So am I the only one doing a "faster reaction" force?
I am working on a mixed battalion, 1/2 Armour, 1/2
infantry, all GEV based. As part of their support there is a platoon of VTOL
based PA whose job is to stabalize the situation until the main force can get
there.

> --- Roger Books <books@jumpspace.net> wrote:

> So am I the only one doing a "faster reaction"

I've pretty much stopped using my grav forces--too
easy to outmaneuver tracked units to be fun. You wouldn't think so from the
relatively small difference in movement speeds, but it has turned out to be
surpisingly decisive on a regular basis.

> I am working on a mixed battalion, 1/2 Armour, 1/2

Hrm... platoon is all well and good if it's organized properly. Pretty easy to
overrun if the enemy is willing to burn the troops to do it, though. And the
transport VTOLs are easy to kill. I'd suggest
doing it as a red/white/blue team.  (7th Cav style).
A 4-6 ship scout element, a 4-6 ship attack element,
and an airmobile platoon.

> On 14-Apr-02 at 16:04, John Atkinson (johnmatkinson@yahoo.com) wrote:

I was planning on sending them in behind gunships. I also made them PA because
if they are on the cutting edge I would want to give them the best
survivability and hitting power I could. Being PA would also mean they can be
dropped further away from the intended goal. Not because I like making them
hop but because I really hate to see them lost dismbarking.

I'm not sure if this will work out but it does give me room for gaming.

SG: PA arrives, has to hold indigeneous troups for X turns.

DS: Main Bodies arrive, starting positions based on results of SG game. I'm
also thinking air based engineers so there
are ready made dug-in positions for the quick response force.
Maybe even a quick minefield. I'm also thinking a standard load for the
artillery includes artillery laid mines.

I am of course fairly clueless and assume all of this is going to involve
doctrine modifications as we game. Fortunately for all involved my little
pewter guys come back whole after suffering staggering losses.

Bid for Dragon Con, I'm going to be there and I have promised myself I would
complete the whole DS battalion.

> --- Roger Books <books@jumpspace.net> wrote:

> DS: Main Bodies arrive, starting positions based on

If you're wanting to dig tank positions, you are going to need dozers and
plenty of spare time. 3.5 hours
for a dozer/ACE team.

On the other hand, you can prepare "digging charges" to dig a plain hole in
the ground. You'll need a bit of bang, but if you have choppers that's not a
problem.

> Maybe even a quick minefield. I'm also thinking a

Maybe even better: Mine dispenser mounted on VTOL. Lay down a couple km of
mines really quick.

> On 14-Apr-02 at 17:20, John Atkinson (johnmatkinson@yahoo.com) wrote:

So this would not be sufficient for a tank? Regardless I've already discovered
that dug in infantry really pisses off my opposition.

How would you simulate this in DS terms?

> Maybe even better: Mine dispenser mounted on VTOL.

I really like this idea.

> --- Roger Books <books@jumpspace.net> wrote:

> > On the other hand, you can prepare "digging

Well, for a tank it'd be a two-stage problem.  First
holes, which needs shaped charges. Then you blow the holes. It would take a
bit of explosives to do this repeatedly.

> Regardless

Yeah--and with the right attachments Powered
Armor-equipped engineers should be able to dig
foxholes decently quick.

> How would you simulate this in DS terms?

Treat 'em as being in hard cover.

That would pretty much ruin everyone's day.

> Well, for a tank it'd be a two-stage problem. First

Thermite grenade? IIRC the US troops in winter 1944 dug foxholes in frozen
ground by using a thermite grenade to "drill" a hole, then another grenade to
excavate the hole.

Then you blow the
> holes. It would take a bit of explosives to do this

> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:

Not foxholes for tanks.

A hasty fighting position for an M1 tank should be 32'
long, 18' wide, and 9' deep.  This is a non-trivial
problem.

4 holes, 60lbs of explosive each. Holes would be dug with 40lb shaped charges
(48" standoff produces a 7' hole 14.5" diameter). That's a modification of the
setup for a deliberate road crater, with the holes evened out to level the
bottom of the crater. That's 400lbs plus priming.

As near as I can tell, that'll still be a bit narrow
and might need some fine-tuning with a bit more bang.
Oh, and the sides will be a bit steep for the tanks to roll in and out. Maybe
another one or two hundred lbs
for fine-tuning.

That's a rough estimate, and would be thrown off by the quality of the soil
and other environmental factors. Permafrost would mean you'd need at least
twice the amount of explosives.

I wouldn't want to do it in combat without verifying some of my guesses.

> On 14-Apr-02 at 19:18, John Atkinson (johnmatkinson@yahoo.com) wrote:

> > Regardless

Got that part, what I really meant was how do you point this out, or do you
just say engineers have this capability.

I'm beginning to think I need to buy GEV trucks which haul
a small bucket-loader.

I think I am drawing an idea of what this force is about.

They are mercenary force licensed by the NAC. Their purpose is dealing with
uprisings on small colony worlds. They are hired by independant governments,
although occasionally the NAC hires them for a mission.

In reality they are NAC troops for which the government can
deny responsibility.  They are kept in tip-top shape by the
occasional small colony contract. When costs overrun income some funding is
forthcoming from the NAC although of late this has been unnecessary.

Oh, one requirement of being a licensed NAC merecenary force is you may not
fight against any NAC colony or the government.
Employment by any non-allied government requires approval from
the NAC.  In the case of a non-aligned colony this is just a
formality. In the case of a stellar government it is looked at very closely.
Mercenary units are not allowed weapons of mass destruction or biologicals.
There is some debate about relaxing this for any mercenary unit going into
areas held by hostile aliens.

I still need to get the whole battalion designed. I also need to figure out
what they do for interplanetary logistics and

> --- Roger Books <books@jumpspace.net> wrote:

> Got that part, what I really meant was how do you

Well, if you want my opinion your engineers don't dig foxholes under fire.
They shoot at the zippers trying to light them up.

A 2-man fighting position with overhead cover takes 11
manhours to dig with hand tools, and any infantry slob
can do that.  PA could do that in 1/2 the time?

Engineers differ in capability for earthmoving in that they have specialist
equipment.

> I'm beginning to think I need to buy GEV trucks

In which case, a good practical rule of thumb might be
each bucket-loader (or actually, SEE[1]) could dig in
a squad each hour. Now, that won't include overhead cover, so you might not
want to count that as hard cover vs. airburst artillery.

Specialized Engineering Powered Armor might be 4-8
times as good as unaugmented troops. So 2 PA
Engineers could dig a 2-man position with overhead
cover in under an hour, no problem.

> I still need to get the whole battalion designed. I

Hey, I'd be more than happy to help. Let me know what you need. I've probably
thrown together more batallion TOEs than anyone else on the list, although the
logistics side is not what I'm best at.

[1]The SEE is a lightweight, all-wheel-drive,
diesel-engine, high-mobility machine. It is equipped
with a hoe, a loader bucket, and other hydraulic attachments, which normally
include a hammer drill, a chainsaw, and a pavement breaker. Check the
operator's
manual for using the SEE's hydraulic-mounted
attachments. The SEE weighs less than 16,000 pounds,
is air-transportable, can travel more than 50 mph on
improved roads, and has excellent off-road mobility.

> John Atkinson wrote:

> > How would you simulate this in DS terms?

I'd treat them as "dug-in" - that's what they are, after all <g> (DS2
doesn't use the term "hard cover", which also favours "dug-in" ;-) )

To give an example of how soil can effect the charge, we tried to use a shape
charge to "dig" our hole for a cratering charge in the Mojave (FT Irwin). Blew
a nice clean hole @ 2' in diameter, the cratering charge is @ 6" in diameter.
The "book" said it should work.

Michael Brown

[quoted original message omitted]

GEVs present a number of problems. I have assumed that materials technology
and active sound suppression (negative sound wave projection for sound
cancelation) are used to make GEVs quiet. (See:
http://www.cygnusx1.info/ds2/techlib/gev.html).

I use Mechanized Cavalry (motorbikes, grav-bikes, hovercycles, etc.) for
scouts (see http://www.cygnusx1.info/ds2/techlib/mechcav.asp). Small 1-2
man teams with range finders, sensors, a radio, and TAG equipment. Since there
are no rules in DS2 for attacking single figures (snipers, etc.) I usually
make a lone figure (or 2 man team) take 1 more valid chit count to mission
kill (i.e. 5 to kill instead of 4).

---
Brian Bell bbell1@insight.rr.com ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable YIM: Rlyehable
Cygnus X1.info
http://www.cygnusx1.info/
---

[quoted original message omitted]

> --- Michael Brown <mwbrown@sonic.net> wrote:

Actually, if you start digging through the manuals (I did in response to this
issue) you find that in an
appendix in the 5-100 series Survivability manual,
there's a listing of conversion factors for types of soil. Unfortunately it
runs off of 2 letter acronyms which I presume are explained in the Soils
Engineering FM. So I ignored it.

Agreed, hasty fox holes with explosives/PA engineers = yes.  AFV
fighting positions, seems a bit too much fiction without several quantum leaps
in shaped charge explosives technology. YMMV.

Gracias,
Glenn/Triphibious@juno.com
This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.
Historical - Warbeads@juno.com
Fantasy and 6mm - dwarf_warrior@juno.com

On Sun, 14 Apr 2002 17:01:46 -0700 (PDT) John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:

I meant 2 inches in diameter.

Michael Brown

[quoted original message omitted]

> --- Michael Brown <mwbrown@sonic.net> wrote:

In soft sand or something?

Or in rock?

You were using the 40 lb charges, right? That sounds more like the 15lb ones.
And what standoff did you use?

Jon

Given this was about when you were born (August 1980), IIRC 15lb with @ 24 to
30 inch stand off. Typical NTC soil (just this side of concrete)

Michael Brown

[quoted original message omitted]

> --- Michael Brown <mwbrown@sonic.net> wrote:

Yeah, 2" hole sounds more like performance from concrete or permafrost, and
just better than performance vs. armor plate.

Soil is supposed to be 7".