_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lWorking on having
each SG2 force a 'bit different' in equipment...
I see the a 9 possible combination for fire arms:
1. LTAR and SAW 2. LTAR and Rotary SAW 3. LTAR and Gauss SAW (?!?) 4. AAR and
SAW 5. AAR and Rotary SAW 6. AAR and Gauss SAW (??) 7. Gauss AR and SAW (??)
8. Gauss AR and Rotary SAW (?) 9. Gauss AR and Gauss SAW
Which, if any, of these strike you as an 'out of line' (ignoring $$ cost in
Real Life) combination for a platoon?
These seem fairly unlikely:
> 2. LTAR and Rotary SAW
Hi,
> Working on having each SG2 force a 'bit different' in equipment...
None of them are really "out of line" per se, but a couple are a bit iffy.
If you're arming your forces with a low tech assault rifle, why are you giving
them gauss SAW (which would be higher tech and presumably higher cost). If you
had the tech base (or the economic base) to provide gauss
SAW, why not gauss AR also?
In other words, I'd cut out numbers 3 and 6.
Also, you haven't included grenade launchers in the combinations; in SGII,
adding a GL to your AR increases the FP of the weapon by 1.
I would set your options up something like this (not an exclusive list to be
sure)
"Low Tech"
1. LTAR (FP 2 IMP d8) and SAW (FP d8 IMP d8)
2. LTAR / GL (FP 3 IMP d8) and SAW (FP d8 IMP d8)
3. LTAR (FP 2 IMP d8) and Rotary SAW (FP d10 IMP d8)
4. LTAR / GL (FP 3 IMP d8) and Rotary SAW (FP d10 IMP d8)
"Mid Tech"
5. AAR (FP 2 IMP d10) and SAW (FP d8 IMP d10)
6. AAR / GL (FP 3 IMP d10) and SAW (FP d8 IMP d10)
7. AAR (FP 2 IMP d10) and rotary SAW (FP d10 IMP d10)
8. AAR / GL (FP 3 IMP d10) and rotary SAW (FP d10 IMP d10)
You'll notice that the stats for the rotary SAW used by the Low Tech force is
different for that used by the Mid Tech force (higher Impact rating in Mid
Tech force). This is to give more options at both levels.
"High Tech"
7. Gauss AR (FP 2 IMP d12) and rotary SAW (FP d10 IMP d10)
8. Gauss AR / GL (FP 3 IMP d12) and rotary SAW (FP d10 IMP d10)
9. Gauss AR (FP 2 IMP d12) and Gauss SAW (FP d10 IMP d12)
10. Gauss AR / GL (FP 3 IMP d12) and Gauss SAW (FP d10 IMP d12)
If you wanted to be more extreme, you could give the Gauss SAW FP d12 IMP d12.
On the other hand, one or two of the SG "armies" is listed (in the description
of the minitures) as having a plasma SAW (actually called "RF
antipersonnel plasma gun" in the description for SGN-18B out of the Neu
Swabian 25mm line). Maybe the Gauss SAW is FP d10 IMP d12 and the RF
antipersonnel plasma gun is FP d12 IMP d10.
Or something like that...
> On 10/11/06, Glenn Wilson <glenn-wilson-1950@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
3 and 7 are wierd because if you're shelling out for gauss weaponry in one
category, why are you using a inferior weapon in the other category?
Having said that, in the history of small arms procurement I think you can
find wierder decisions than any of those above.
> At 8:15 AM +0300 10/11/06, John Atkinson wrote:
Maybe they have fouled up procurement. Kind of an inverse of the.03
Springfield and the Chautchaut?
> Having said that, in the history of small arms procurement I think you
BING!
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 10/10/06, Adrian
> <adrian@stargrunt.ca> wrote:
Examples of these combinations show up in history, probably the most
> relevant being German Armed forces in WW2.
The Fallschirmjaeger (FJ - or paratroops) had a moderately complicated,
highly crafted MG called the FJ42. It was clip (20 rounds) or drum-fed
(50
rounds) and performed adequately. The Regular army had the MG34 -
belt-fed
with fire rates up to 800 rounds per minute, highly reliable and fewer parts
than the FJ42. Why would the FJ use such an expensive, mediocre weapon when
their standard infantry weapon was a semi-automatic carbine or a simple
SMG
(MP40)?
The primary reason was interservice rivalry - The FJ were under
Luftwaffe control while the rest of the infantry was under Army Control. The
FJ
eventually converted to the MG34 and later MG-42 because the FJ was too
costly and time-consuming to build in any large quantity.
The Germans had the technology to build superior assault rifles for many
years (fully auto weapons shooting cut-down rifle rounds, rather than
pistol rounds), but were hindered by objections from the top. Hitler objected
to development of the assault rifle because he thought it a waste of
resources, the designers proceeded anyway and hid it under the cover name MP44
(Machinepistol 44 or submachine gun 44). After development was completed and
Hitler shown the effectiveness of the weapon, he changed his mind and allowed
it to be put into production as the StG44 (Sturmgeweher 44 or
'storm' or assault rifle 44). That design was the basis for the AK-47
which has been in use for nearly 60 years.
So just because a country has the technology, industrial base, intellectual
capacity etc. to design, build and distribute a high-tech weapon system
doesn't mean that it will. Because of political or institutional
stubborness a highly-effective system can be hindered from deployment,
or an overly complicated, expensive system fielded despite its battlefield
performance.
--Binhan
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lThe primary reason
was interservice rivalry - The FJ were under Luftwaffe control while the
rest of the infantry was under Army Control. The FJ eventually
converted to the MG34 and later MG-42 because the FJ was too costly and
time-consuming to build in any large quantity.
The Germans had the technology to build superior assault rifles for
many years (fully auto weapons shooting cut-down rifle rounds, rather
than pistol rounds), but were hindered by objections from the top. Hitler
objected to development of the assault rifle because he thought it a waste of
resources, the designers proceeded anyway and hid it under the cover name MP44
(Machinepistol 44 or submachine gun 44). After development was completed and
Hitler shown the effectiveness of the weapon, he changed his mind and allowed
it to be put into production as the StG44 (Sturmgeweher 44 or 'storm' or
assault rifle 44). That design
was the basis for the AK-47 which has been in use for nearly 60 years.
So just because a country has the technology, industrial base,
intellectual capacity etc. to design, build and distribute a high-tech
weapon system doesn't mean that it will. Because of political or
institutional stubborness a highly-effective system can be hindered from
deployment, or an overly complicated, expensive system fielded despite its
battlefield performance.
--Binhan
I agree with your comments about Hitler prohibiting the development of an
assault rifle. The germans were not the only ones to suffer polotical
interference during the design of different weapons.
Look at the NAC ships in FT. Why do you go to the difficulty of supporting
ships with so many different weapon systems on the same ship? Having one pulse
torpedo can't make that much of a difference to the combat effectiveness of
the ship compared to the same mass in beams but must increase the support
costs a lot. It seems likely that the politican on the arms appropriation
committee comes from a sector that makes pulse torpedos and wants to benefit
their constiuents and their own political career by getting money spent in
their electorate.