GMS/P and Infantry

It's not a matter of warhead, but a matter of guidance. A human target
(possibly) excepting the heaviest power armor hasn't the millimetric, thermal,
or magnetic signature to attract a guided missile. Humans, being a "natural"
target blend in with the surrounding terrain too well against
these sensors. Direct fire weapons rely on visual, and Non-Disposeable
radar,thermograph, and magnetic anomaly detectors, more expensive and
sophisticated than those placed in one shot weapons.
    The rules reflect this in that the GMS/P dosen't contend with range
die only ECM of a vehicular target. It considers the other end of the table
close range for targeting. The IAVR is a direct line of sight weapon, and has
to deal with manual sighting instead of guided sighting, and has to worry
about range die, but not ECM or PDS.
    One reason GMS/P is ineffective against infantry due to the slower
speed of the munitions in question, (The guidance systems tax the engines more
than a M72 LAW type rocket's engine), and the increased size of the guided
missile over an IAVR (the engines are larger and there is a guidance system
tacked on,) means that point defence can actually acquire the target where an
IAVR is half the size and approx. 50% faster. Infantry actually have a decent
chance of diving out of the way, or even staying put and the warhead locking
on to something more appealing (having a bigger signature).

As far as warheads themselves, the IAVR, if reuseable (like a rocket propelled
grenade type), may have multiple type warheads, explosive anti personell, and
Shaped Charge Anti Tank (SCAT rounds). SCAT type warheads only detonate on
hard armor, they will pass right through a human without detonating. Okay this
has the effect of removing one figure (maybe, a glancing blow or a near hit is
more likely to give minor brusing than anything devistating) but the
effectiveness of the warhead is lost. The detonation of the warhead will not
affect anyone in the squald as the warheads are not strictly explosive, but
direct their energy down into the ground, even the shrapnel at anything over
two yards will be a dirt shower, not a frag explosion
    The GMS systems are so much larger (GMS/P: Stinger AA missile or
Dragon ATGM, modern ATGMs are no less than 20 Lbs and easily go up to 100 Lbs
each
for single shot launchers) than the IAVR (think M72-LAW, 5lbs, or an
assault rifle fitted with a Rocket Propelled Grenade), that tracking infantry
targets (not sighting but simply keeping the barrel pointing the right way,
plus lead-off, at any single moment) is much harder for GMS personel
than IAVR personel.

As far as GMS/P vs Bunkers and Dug In positions (Historical refrence
earlier in this thread): Bunkers are targets rated for size and armor just
like
vehicles, Dug-in Infantry probably recieve an under fire marker
(Automaticly, no need to test for hits), and may have to make morale tests,
but actual casualties will be limited to minor burns, bruses, and scrapes.

Okay that's my $0.02 plus inflation and taxes

> Jim Whitehead wrote:

[good comments about locking GMS/P onto people snipped]

> One reason GMS/P is ineffective against infantry due to the slower
(having a bigger signature).

While this is true for true rockets, many of today's IAVR-ish weapons -
the Bofors AT4, the Miser, IIRC the Panzerfausts as well, to name some
weapons existing today - aren't rocket-powered. A GMS/P missile (with
an in-flight rocket engine) is very likely to fly faster than these
grenades.

It is also very likely that future LAW generations will have some sort of
guidance, so I wouldn't make too much of the difference between guided and
unguided missiles.

> As far as warheads themselves, the IAVR, if reuseable (like a

"SCAT" are more commonly called HEAT (High Explosive Anti Armour)
nowadays - the only modern warheads that aren't SC are the pure
fragmentation AP ones (and smoke, light and other non-lethal types).
There are almost as many abbreviations as there are grenade and missile
types, though - each manufacturer invents his own :-/

> SCAT type warheads only detonate on hard armor, they will pass right

I'd imagine that even a glancing blow from a 2.5+ kg projectile coming
at you at 150 m/s or more would give you somewhat more than a minor
bruising - unless you're in a PA suit, but if you are the bloody thing
is likely to explode anyway since the PA *is* hard armour :-/ Still,
it's only one figure lost.

> but the effectiveness of the warhead is lost. The

Here you seem to assume a roof-hitting projectile. The shooter has to
screw up rather badly to get a glancing hit on infantry with such a one
- they're designed to overfly their target, not hit it head-on.

> even the shrapnel at anything over two yards will be a dirt shower,

Um... Obviously SG/DS shaped-charge development has reached *far*
beyond where we are today, if they're able to concentrate the energy that well
in a single direction <g> I wouldn't recommend standing two
yards to the side of a detonating shaped-charge warhead, even if it's
only LAW-sized :-/

I think the first part of your analysis - GMS/P have difficulties to
lock on to infantry targets, whereas impact- or time-fused IAVRs don't
need to lock on - is pretty much spot on. The rest, well... you've
already seen my comments <g>

Later,