Okay guys:
How many of you think GMS firecontrol is
1) a product of the round (ie, the same launcher can fire GMS
enhanced and GMS superior since the intelligence is in the round -
goes with fire and forget I'd guess) therefore the launcher can be universal
2) believe it is a product of the sights and sensors on the launcher, so an
enhanced launcher can't fire superior rounds (what is more, it probably
requires a specific enhanced rounds to work with its sensors).
1 seems to leave open the idea of having one GMS system (GMS/L for
example) that can have varying missile qualities and varies the firecontrol
used against various targets (ie it can fire ground,
anti-air, and multi role rounds from the same launcher).
2 seems to be more like todays missiles where the launcher has a lot of the
detection gear.
I don't know which is suggested or required by the GZG universe.
Tom.
/************************************************
> Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca> wrote:
> 1) a product of the round (ie, the same launcher can fire GMS
I think that this is true of fire & forget GMS. This would also be true of the
US Army's Javelin missile.
> 2) believe it is a product of the sights and sensors on the launcher,
Only if the missile was guided by the operator, like TOW. New TOW sights
can fire old TOW missiles - but old TOW sights can't fire new TOW
missiles, IIRC.
> 1 seems to leave open the idea of having one GMS system (GMS/L for
In my rules, I allow GMS to be designated as either normal or
anti-air
(one shot only as an interupt) or multi-role (but only if appropriate to
genre) at the start of the game. An anti-air missile would be more
likely to be an area effect burst, rather than an direct impact.
> 2 seems to be more like todays missiles where the launcher has a lot
In the polypheme missile http://www.army-technology.com/ the missile
is guided through an imaging sensor in the nose of the missile feeding an
image through 40KM of fiber optic cable back to the operator's console in the
launch vehicle. Up to 6 of these missile could be fitted onto what looks like
a humvee. Just for your information.
> I don't know which is suggested or required by the GZG universe.
Option 1, I think.
In a message dated 11/19/1998 4:59:13 PM Central Standard Time,
> Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca writes:
> How many of you think GMS firecontrol is
My vote
Greetings!
> On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> How many of you think GMS firecontrol is
I think that minimal "intelligence" would be placed in the round, as that
always goes up in smoke at the end of the day. I think most of the money would
be laid in with a sensor package on the side of the launcher that can be
reused, i.e. the Dragon and the Javelin.
There are a few guys with infantry experience on the list. Mayber they can
comment, as a few of them have probably fired some
GMS/Ps
and Ls... :)
Laterish!
Ken
My $0.02...
> How many of you think GMS firecontrol is
I'm for this one - we are moving toward this technology wise anyway -
look at the Javelin system now being fielded by the US. The launcher does have
sensors, but the missile itself once fired does its own guidance. I figure
that will just get better in the future - until the launcher is a simple
device what just acts as an interface between the operator and the missile
electronics. In a future of high-tech helmets with HUD's, etc, the
launcher may not even need a viewfinder, 'cause images would be projected onto
the inside of the users' visor.
Problem - if the EW tech of the enemy is greater than your ability to
resist it, maybe they'll be able to screw up these missiles even before
they're fired. SO, you might incorporate a "low tech" manual guidance system
into the launcher (much miniaturized over today's, of course), so if the
soldiers know the enemy is spoofing their "smart" systems, they can turn it on
"dumb" mode and guide the missiles themselves. Of course, the accuracy will
suffer and likelyhood of return fire hurting the gunner will increase, but at
least systems would keep operating...
Game Effect: You get enhanced or superior guidance for your missiles, but EW
equipped enemy can attempt to jam missile systems (their EW vs. your
guidance) - if they do, you only get basic fire control...
> 1 seems to leave open the idea of having one GMS system (GMS/L for
I really like the idea of a single launcher being able to fire different
types of targets. The warheads/seeker system could be interchangable
(with common rocket motor, guidance fins, etc.), and you just attach an
anti-tank
warhead or anti-aircraft warhead prior to launching.
Game Effect: You determine how many of each type of system your gunners
are carrying prior to the game. For example, operators of GMS/P systems
in SG2 presently carry (commonly) only 3 missiles. You could say they have
three rockets, but five warheads - three anti-armour and two anti-air.
This gives the grunts a chance to shoot back with guided missile fire at
aircraft units.
FYI: I've heard of development efforts toward this kind of system in "real
life" anyway - so it isn't too far off. The Canadian military deploys a
system called ADATS, which is a guided missile weapon designed for both
anti-armour and anti-air use. I believe it has a scanning radar for
initial target aquisition (in anti-air mode) but uses a laser for actual
targeting when the missiles fire, even in the anti-air role. My
friend's cousin is a Warrent Officer in the Regiment that operates these
things, and we heard that in a recent deployment with the US Marines, the
ADATS system was able to shoot down things like cruise missiles, etc. The
range on the
system is between local air defence like the Stinger and long-range air
defence like the Patriot, and they are mounted on armoured vehicles. The US
was one of the original development partners of the system, but they backed
out years ago. I think the Marines want to get it, because it fills a real gap
in US air defense. It kicks ass on tanks, too...
Adrian spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Problem - if the EW tech of the enemy is greater than your ability to
> Game Effect: You get enhanced or superior guidance for your missiles,
your
> guidance) - if they do, you only get basic fire control...
But how do you JAM in the middle of someone else's turn? (I forget, are you
just allowed to spend your EW chits,.... I guess you must to jam someone
else's comms).
I think that you might Implement the following: Any GMS that has a target lock
and have been fired may be 'Jammed' by the expenditure of an EW chit. (Of
course, counter jamming may be applied). Roll EW equipment quality versus GMS
FC. If EW roll is higher, then GMS is jammed. If the EW roll is more than
TWICE the GMS roll, lock is lost and the round goes ballistic. Otherwise, a
jammed missile uses two shifts lower fire control. (Down to D4 mimimum).
Also. launcher suppression may be applied. In this case, an EW chit is spent
and put beside a target launching unit. That unit is being
point-jammed. Thereafter, a unit MUST attempt lock on versus even
ground targets (roll Quality vs ECM) before launch (as if engaging an air
unit) and any engagements versus air units make the lock on check already
required two die shifts harder (this is an open shift). Of course, an enemy EW
chit can be spent to counter the point jamming.
Here is another thought for EW systems: Primitive System: 1 chit Basic System:
2 chits Enhanced System: 3 chits Superior System: 4 chits Advanced System: 5
chits
Gives your Kra-Vak with Advanced EW a scary capability.
> I really like the idea of a single launcher being able to fire
Well, probably not that - AT weapons need less speed and less range.
But interchangeable missiles are good (the AT version is larger and warhead,
the AA version has more fuel).
> Game Effect: You determine how many of each type of system your
I just make them choose the types of their three rockets. I let loader figures
without a heavy weapon carry up to five more shots.
> FYI: I've heard of development efforts toward this kind of system in
NOT man portable, and not very good at air and ground engagements. Definitely
Multi Role GMS.
I believe it has a scanning radar for
> initial target aquisition (in anti-air mode) but uses a laser for
Cruise are slow and big for a missile. Rifles have shot down cruise missiles I
believe. AA guns surely have.
The range on the
> system is between local air defence like the Stinger and long-range
LAD or ZAD type weapon.
The
> US was one of the original development partners of the system, but
Fairly good vs. Armour. GDWs Twilight 2000 had good info on this system.
/************************************************
> On Fri, 20 Nov 1998, Kenneth Winland wrote:
well, microchips these days aren't too expensive, and in the future they're
going to be essentially free. think of sheets of them being nanoprinted on
organic semisuperconductor, like so many postage stamps. putting intelligence
in missiles will be cheap, and probably the best option. provided you can get
cheap sensors as well, of course. i'm just
waiting for the guided rifle round (anyone seen 'the fifth element' -
think of the 'replay' option on that whizzo rifle the bad guy was selling)
Tom
> Problem - if the EW tech of the enemy is greater than your ability to
your
> guidance) - if they do, you only get basic fire control...
How 'bout this:
Maybe what happens is that the EW user jams the EMR frequencies used by the
known enemy weapon systems, or more likely tries to directly spoof the
enemy electronics (mechanism for this - I'm not quite sure how). Game
result - the EW unit can expend some amount of it's capability to
actively jam all the enemy missile systems in a limited area (the battlefield
for our purposes). This should be difficult to do, and draw on much of the EW
unit's resources, because you are engaging in a "broad spectrum" jamming
effort against a specific set of enemy systems. Game effect: the EW unit can
spend chits, maybe 2 or 3, to jam enemy missile systems before they are fired.
The jamming lasts for a set period of time (one game turn???). Whenever the
enemy wants to fire a missile, they make a guidance system roll vs. the EW
system. If they win, they get to attack with their full guidance system. If
they fail, they only get a basic guidance system (the "manual backup").
However, it takes the full attention of the EW unit to provide this "blanket
coverage", so they CAN'T do anything else during that
turn - 'cause jamming different missile systems is an active effort.
So, the EW unit must spend several chits to do it, and can't do anything else
while they're doing it. The guy with the missiles has to roll against the EW
each time he wants to fire a missile. Of course, if the target has electronic
defenses, the missile has to beat those too... (but does so at its full
ability if it beats the EW).
I figure the EW should affect the missile before it is fired, 'cause the EW
guy would have a difficult time reacting to a missile once it has been fired.
<snip>
> I really like the idea of a single launcher being able to fire
Yes, typically AT weapons need less speed and less range. But the real
complex challenge isn't motors, it's warheads. An anti-air warhead is
very
different from an anti-armour warhead. If you assume a
higher-than-present-day tech level of rocket motors - you build a
motor/guidance fin package that is capable of anti-air. The fact that
it is fast and goes far is just BETTER for the AT role (heck, they used to say
that the 2.75" unguided training rockets that the Canadian Air Force uses
have a secondary anti-armour role simply because they travelled so fast
and
were very accurate - kinetic energy kills vs. light armoured and
unarmoured targets.... supposedly, the Israelis started taking the warheads
off their
Maverick anti-tank missiles because they discovered that a hit from the
missile alone was enough to kill all the tanks they were up against - so
they took the warheads off to save money). If the motor becomes a standard
useful for both anti-air and anti-armour, then the interchangeable
component would be the guidance system/warhead. Your AT rocket may not
have the hugest warhead, but you compensate for that with increased kinetic
energy, and with the increases that will happen in warhead technology.
Besides, it's simpler to carry around small warheads with one size missile
body than different types of missiles.
<snip>
> NOT man portable, and not very good at air and ground engagements.
The person we know in the air defense regiment who has the ADATS seemed to
think that it was an excellent system, but I'm getting this second/third
hand. Certainly, I don't think the system has ever been used in a real
operational situation (other than tests and exercises) - so there's no
data to say how it performed in combat. The people who use it seem to think it
is very effective.
> I believe it has a scanning radar for
Not at 5 miles. I believe the reason why this seemed like a good thing to the
Marines was that it had the capability to effectively shoot down targets well
beyond the range of their close air defence (like shoulder
fired Stingers, or the HMMWV-Avenger system, again with Stingers), but
didn't require the infrastructure of a Patriot-type system. You could
put ADATS on a LAV25 chassis and it could go in with the assault troops, as it
were. The fact that it has an anti-armour role is just icing on the
cake -
one system to do what a TOW does now, but better, and they don't have
anything to do the anti-air at these ranges. This is a big gap in the
US air defense structure. To the best of my knowledge, they have no effective
anti-air defense between theatre wide stuff (Like Patriot, which is used
for theatre defense but is really a point target defense) and close defense
systems like PIVAD, Stinger, etc. They need something that gives
anti-air
out to say, 10 miles, but can ride on an armoured vehicle and thereby support
the mobile formations.
<snip>
[quoted original message omitted]