> HARM missile systems - US Airforce. VTOLs - US Marines had to do a
The LAV's are built in Canada, but started out as a Swiss design, and are
produced by the Diesel Division of General Motors of Canada (of course that
being a subsidiary of GM-USA). Let's hear it for Globalization....
Canada has used the Carl-G for decades, and the Canadian infantiers I've
talked to about it say it's a good piece of kit, but too heavy - even
the lighter more modern versions. My friend fired one during famil training at
an old tank, and the round bounced off the turret and set fire to some grass
on the range. They then had to put the fire out and he was most
unimpressed - particularly since I think the tank he fired it at was an
old
Korean-war vintage Centurian, or something like that... We also use the
US-made LAW, though for some reason I think that the Canadian
*disposable,
one use* LAWs are reloaded - maybe for practice purposes only, but
that's
what I was told... What we don't have is a good GMS/P - and with the
introduction of the Javelin we're finally getting something that is guided,
but smaller than the TOW...
That all aside, what I think I originally commented on was the idea that there
are GMS systems NOW, like the ADATS, which have been specifically designed to
engage (effectively) both air and ground targets. Is is reasonable, in the
world of 2180, to suggest that they will have this capability in their GMS
systems. In particular (since I'm a Stargrunt
player mostly) is it reasonable to think that the GMS/P, GMS/L and GMS/H
systems that my troopers and vehicles carry should be able to engage both
types of targets?
Maybe the seeker/guidance system can engage both (since all GZG-universe
GMS systems are fire-and-forget, I believe), but the gunner has to
change out the warhead to engage the different targets, particularly in the
smallest missiles (the GMS/P)? Maybe they can just engage both, without
any kind of fiddling?
I suggested a mechanism (in game terms) somthing like the following:
You have a designated system, either GMS-AA or GMS-AT, but either system
can engage the other target type. There is some penalty for engaging the
non-designated target type though. Maybe your guidance system die goes
down by one. Maybe your armour penetration goes down - say from d12 (or
multiple thereof) to d8 (or multiple thereof).
What do you guys think?
Adrian Johnson asked:
> Canada has used the Carl-G for decades, and the Canadian infantiers
I know. Problem is, if we lighten it any further accuracy goes to hell,
and if we shorten the barrel the pressure around the weapon - which is
rather high as it is - will increase even more :-(
> That all aside, what I think I originally commented on was the idea
> Maybe the seeker/guidance system can engage both (since all GZG-
The big problem with the smallest missiles isn't the warhead size as such, but
rather the combination of warhead size and engine size. A warhead able to kill
a tank is larger than what you need to kill an aircraft (with a direct hit at
least; AA frag warheads tend to be bigger but allow much cheaper guidance
systems); OTOH the engine you
need to hit a fast-mover is much bigger than the engine you need to hit
a tank (unless we're talking Renegade Legion tanks with cruising speeds
of several hundred mph, of course :-/). If you combine an engine strong
enough to catch a fast-moving aircraft with a warhead big enough to
kill a tank, you end up with a fairly large missile.
Sure, the engines will get smaller and lighter in the future as we get more
efficient propellants, and the warheads might get smaller once we
get those super-explosives the scientists are muttering about (though I
doubt it - IMO the targets will get correspondingly tougher instead, so
even if the total mass of the explosives gets lower we'll need to add
counter-countermeasures to get past the active defences :-/ ), but
it'll always be possible to build a specialized missile smaller than a
dual-purpose one. If the GSM/P are to be similar in weight to the
Javelin (or preferrably lighter still), they'll have problems hitting
fast-movers.
> Maybe they can just engage both, without any kind of fiddling?
GSM/H, most likely. GSM/L, probably. GSM/P... no. If they can do that,
they're too large to be GSM/P - or we have single-man-portable GSM/L-H
:-/
> I suggested a mechanism (in game terms) somthing like the following:
In the GMS-AA case, penetration goes down if it hits an AFV - it is
maneuverable enough to hit, but generally carries a lighter warhead
since its intended targets are softer. In the GMS-AT case, the hit
probability against fast-moving aircraft (ie, not what DSII calls
"VTOLs") goes way down; the warhead is definitely strong enough... *if* it
hits.
Regards,
In a message dated 10/2/99 2:02:52 AM Central Daylight Time,
> ajohnson@idirect.com writes:
> You have a designated system, either GMS-AA or GMS-AT, but either
I like it personally and it all sounds reasonable to me.
But from all of the talk here about GMS and infantry portable AT weapons in
general I get the impression that you guys equip your squads with a lot more
AT firepower than I do. I generally give every squad some AT ability, but
that may just be a 'simple' plasma weapon. And as for GMS-P, I tend to
keep those as platoon level assets (or in the case of orks, company level
assets).
SC
> In a message dated 10/2/99 2:02:52 AM Central Daylight
Antimatter solves many problems....
> Adrian Johnson wrote:
> You have a designated system, either GMS-AA or GMS-AT, but either
Good idea.