1) I pronounce it "ivar" (eye-vahr) even though it is spelled IAVR. I've
yet to find a flowing pronunciation for this, and reciting the acronym sounds
silly. And I've heard a lot of SG2 players call it an "ivar" for probably the
same reason.
2) Firing a guy named "ivar" at a tank is a time honoured ESU Penal
Battalion anti-armour technique. Some of those Kulaks are pretty
effective in that role.... don't sell this technique short.
;)
> 2) Firing a guy named "ivar" at a tank is a time honoured ESU Penal
> Chris DeBoe wrote:
Oh ok.
Now we'll sound like Londo Mollari when we call for a rocket attack...
paging the bat squad...
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, Jon Davis wrote:
> Chris DeBoe wrote:
***
> 2) Firing a guy named "ivar" at a tank is a time honoured ESU Penal
no no, that's an Anti Vehicle Infantry Rocket--AVIR.
***
Well, the first AVIR was an unscrupulous quartermaster named Ivan, hense the
confusion. Ivar is still in use, though I believe it's due to hard feelings
towards the Scandinavian Federation, and one particular minister of the
interior.
However, this is a very dangerous area for discussion.
Please don't forget, the ground contingent of our heroic forces, by far, are
'enlisted' from those patriotic Union members in Asia. Also note, the Kulak
reference is pure propaganda from outside our glorious state; hard working,
prosperous workers always reap the highest rewards.
True, though, the heftiest profiteers DO leave the largest, and therefore
greatest psychological effect, mass dripping from the vehicle hulls of the
scurrilous enemies of the Rodina...
U.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, Jon Davis wrote:
> Chris DeBoe wrote:
LOL!
Centari Ambassador stationed on Babylon 5.
If you have not watched the series you owe it to yourself to do so.
Magic
[quoted original message omitted]
Who/what is a Londo Mollari?
On Thu, 27 Sep 2001 12:37:31 -0700 (PDT) Michael Llaneza
> <maserati@speakeasy.net> writes:
***
Centari Ambassador stationed on Babylon 5.
If you have not watched the series you owe it to yourself to do so.
***
And Vir Cotto(sp?) was his assistant, ergo, Ah, Vir...
One look at the GZG web site, if there are ever pictures again of the GF
range, will indicate how much the saintly one respects B5.
> Who/what is a Londo Mollari?
http://harlequin-miniatures.com/picturepage2.php?code=B5102&ctry=uk&lng=
gb
Great character, peacock hairdo , wonderful Ak-sent - seen here in set
two
Thank you for the cogent and detailed reasoning. Unfortunately I don't think
it is available on the commercial channels locally. Sometimes I miss a gem in
not watching TV, I admit.
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 Sat, 29 Sep 2001 07:01:55 -0300 "Bob Makowsky" <rmako@coqui.net>
writes:
> Glenn,
Okay, I let my distaste for TV cut me out too soon.
On Sat, 29 Sep 2001 20:39:14 -0400 Allan Goodall <awg@sympatico.ca>
writes:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2001 18:24:25 EDT, Glenn M Wilson
> At 11:14 30/09/01 -0400, you wrote:
Don't worry I'm finding that most of the scripts and plots for 'Grown up' TV
and movies leaves a lot to be desired, the kids have better programs
:)
John the soft-spoken sayeth:
Depends on doctrine. I mean think about it. In 2183, the radio, binoculars,
and night vision are all built into the helmet and weigh a few ounces each.
[Tomb] This is likely correct.
Advanced weapons (gauss especially) would probably be less likely to need
spare barrels.
[Tomb] This is likely incorrect, or a bit of a red herring at best.
I'm thinking that a weapon that fires projectiles _much_ faster than
conventional rounds (in order to inflict good damage using the old KE=0.5MV^2
philosophy)would probably have barrel wear issues, heating issues, and if
nothing else, battery issues (it takes a lot of EMF to sprint even a ferrous
sliver up to "ludicrous speed"). Also, with more advanced built in systems for
sighting, for gyrostabilization, etc, you may need other spares not currently
required.
Ammo weight is lower than present due to use of either caseless ammo, binary
propellants, or gauss darts.
[Tomb] Ammo weight is going down. Agreed. The amount of ammo an
infantryman is carrying is going up at exactly the same rate. The amount of
weight carried into combat by modern infantry wouldn't be all that unfamiliar
to one of your favorite Byzantines. The limitation here is human capability.
Yes, an individual round is smaller. But now I fire them in bursts of 10 at a
time. And now
I carry enough rounds I can have a _real_ shootout. But the weight
I as an end user carry ends up about the same.
Grenade launchers are built into the weapons of many nation's standard
riflemen.
[Tomb] This is true. Note this only gives you a +1 FP which suggests
that the grenades of the time are not terribly effective relative to the
armour (they have half the lethality of an AAR with FP2). They are small (by
the looks of them) and probably have a limited explosion and fragmentation
danger zone and are probably well stopped by modern ballistic armours.
And the IAVRs are pretty compact too--I'm thinking of
the ones on the OUDF infantry for instance. You could more plausibly issue
them to practically everyone.
[Tomb] Yep. Just as you could issue every other piece of wazoo kit to
every soldier. And some people have done that. Sometime you want an
interesting example of "Light Infantry" and kit-carrying stupidity,
read the book "Bravo Two Zero" by Andy McNabb. This bunch of gung ho SAS dudes
went into Iraq carrying everything INCLUDING the kitchen sink. It didn't
help....
Now, I don't disagree with you that you would probably issue these in some
frequency to regular troops. Assume the IAVR of 2183 is a
pretty advanced piece of gear in order to defeat the ECM/EW of the
time, and in order to defeat the armour, and in order to operate in both AT
and AP roles. So your jerkwad colonist on Nowhere IV won't necessarily have 5
of these per squad. And in many nations' forces,
the GMS/P in the squad will reduce the need for the IAVR. In SG2
terms, you've got a weapon that can fire across the board with no
degradation in effect - I'd want more of my troops carrying spare
ammo for this instead of carrying IAVRs, but that's just me.
The doctrine of specializing your trooops or spreading out your IAVR assets is
ultimately a matter of choice. Whereas John A argues for specialization in
vehicle designs, he argues for spreading your FP around in infantry
formations. I'd suggest that the specialization in roles within some
formations represents better how that force uses its troops. Spreading the
IAVRs around means if I lose 1 soldier, I only lose a small portion of my FP,
but on the contrary, it gaurantees that for each soldier lost, I lose some of
my FP. If I had a more specialized force, yes I lose more of my FP by losing
one of the key
guys, but if I lose someone else, I don't lose _any_ of my AT FP.
Really, its a choice.
And in general, if you can justify firing your rifle an then another
weapon during the turn, I _really_ plan to give all of my soldiers two
rifles.... the intent of the SG2 rules is such that any given figure can fire
one weapon per activation (actually, even THIS correction requires an
errata... the original rules say once per turn or they did at one time
anyway). The reason that they say a weapon can only fire once is because they
don't want anyone firing their SAW multiple times in a round. Well, similarly,
I don't think Jon figured on the munchkinism of people wanting to fire the
rifle, then whip out an IAVR and fire it, thus getting two attacks plus
changing weapons in the same time period where a normal soldier with a rifle
can only get one effective shot (now, if you grant all riflemen the ability to
fire
a second time, I have less problem with the IAVR/rifle double shot).
You _might_ ripple fire a volley of IAVRs at a tank. You _might_ do
it when shooting at an infantry formation, though I doubt it. You'd be
stripping yourself of your AT capability. The way to teach people who do this
a lesson is have them attacked by tanks before they can get
resupply. Too often in one-off games, people do "gameresque" things
that the actual people (were the game a real situation) would not do because
they have to fight (potentially) in other places before getting resupplied.
You don't waste your FP on the battlefield, or you might not have it when you
need it and that can kill you. If more games punished this kind of Epimethean
thinking, then players might engage in it a little less often. But since we
all seem to magically know how many units the enemy has, that he isn't getting
reinforcements, and that we know where his units are on the board,
we can carry out these very Limburger-rich actions....
Nuff said. The arguments over what you can or can't do in the SG2 rules
regarding firing IAVRs in support of infantry attacks has been had at least
once and possibly twice before and all was said and done. I think if anyone
goes to the archive (CUE JERRY HAN) and looks for IAVR or Firing Support
Weapons or something like that, they'll find the lengthy discussions and rules
citations. No sense
re-hashing this whole issue again when it was done so thoroughly a
year or a year and a half ago....
> [Tomb] Yep. Just as you could issue every other piece of wazoo kit
The "shiny kit syndrome", yes. Note that 250 or so Iraqis would
disagree with you, though--oh, maybe not *all* the kit helped.
> its troops. Spreading the IAVRs around means if I lose 1 soldier, I
Depends on how much training each weapon takes, both to use (Point at target.
Press "Acquire" trigger. Wait for tone. Press "Fire" trigger) and to maintain
("Insert third CD for "weekly maintenance tasklist"). If all your training is
in one guy, you'd better not lose him, either to combat or a noncombat
accident, disease, or transfer.
> --- Tomb <kaladorn@fox.nstn.ca> wrote:
> [Tomb] This is likely incorrect, or a bit of a red
Heh. Mostly batteries--everything else would be
trivial compared to batteries. Although I still think that refraining from
setting off explosions inside your weapon solves most of your heat problem.
> [Tomb] Ammo weight is going down. Agreed. The amount
Byzantines. The
> limitation here is human capability. Yes, an
Probably true. You are correct in saying that the basic load of ammunition has
stayed the same weight for a long time, whether it's the "40 rounds in the
cartrige box and 20 in the pocket" of an ACW rifleman, or 210 rounds of 5.56mm
or anything in between.
> Grenade launchers are built into the weapons of many
They
> are small (by the looks of them) and probably have a
Also true--these are pretty much OICW-style 20mm
grenade launchers with prox-fuzed frag grenades, far
more effective against unarmored troops than the body armor common on the
battlefields of 2183. I'd handle
a large-caliber grenade launcher in the M-79 or M-203
style the same way Los handles it in his Portugese
MTOEs--as a FP d6, Impact d10* support weapon.
> [Tomb] Yep. Just as you could issue every other
I'm an American. I'm familliar with the mindset that says "if you're a Real
Man, you are going to hump 90 pounds 100km with no sleep" and thinks that
that's
realistic mission planning. But an 8-lb buzzbomb is
not that much in the way of overkill, especially for
mechanized/motorized troops that don't do long-term
dismounted operations. Your packing list should be different from Special Ops
guys who are going to try hump all over mountains for 2 weeks with no
resupply.
> Now, I don't disagree with you that you would
Or it's so bloody stupid that there's nothing to jam. Just a plain optic
recticle.
So your jerkwad colonist on > Nowhere IV won't
> necessarily have 5 of these per squad.
Probably not--militias are historically short on
anti-armor weapons. Although I might point out that
as near as I can make out from watching CNN, 50% of Afghanistan's adult male
population has an RPG.
And in many > nations' forces, > the GMS/P in the
squad will reduce the need for the > IAVR. In SG2
> terms, you've got a weapon that can fire across the
True, but. I don't like GMS/Ps. I'd rather have
GMS/Ls. Only a few of them, concentrated as a signle
weapons squad in the platoon. For single squads, the
IAVR is a substitute. Remember, my 8-man squads have
2 SAWs and 6 IAVRs (everyone not carrying a SAW)
instead of 1 SAW and 1 GMS/P. I figure that for
hunting tanks, I've got tanks. Of course, my MTOEs are also almost all
mechanized units also. Light infantry bores me to tears.
> You _might_ ripple fire a volley of IAVRs at a tank.
Against a size 3 or 4 tank with armor 3 or 4, you'd almost have to, and still
not be guaranteed a good solid hit.
> resupply. Too often in one-off games, people do
This is why it's nice to have a referee.
Gameridiot: "I want this squad to volley-fire all five
IAVRs at that squad in this clump of trees." Ref: "Your troops won't do that."
Gameridiot: "But there's no rule against it!" Ref: *Sigh.* "OK, your LT tells
your squad to shoot all their buzzbombs at that clump of trees. Staff Sergeant
Fitzhugh replies '6, this is 2, your transmission is breaking up,' and says
something under his breath about stupid fucking officers. You loose your
activation. Jack, it's your turn." Jack: "I'm activating this squad and
calling for artillery." Gameridiot: *bursts into tears, starts sucking his
thumb, goes back to playing WH40K.*
> John Atkinson wrote:
> --- Tomb <kaladorn@fox.nstn.ca> wrote:
The heat problem will be different, and you will still be setting off
explosives in the weapon. Delivering the amount of energy to accelerate a
projectile to a high velocity requires very rapid discharge rates. Let's plug
some numbers in:
5g projectile 1m barrel length
600m/s muzzle velocity (~mach2)
180000m/s^2 average acceleration (V^2=2ad)
3.3 milliseconds to reach muzzle velocity 900j of muzzle energy
The average discharge rate during a shot is 270kilowatts.
The discharge rate looks impressive, but it is only a problem if the
weapon is firing at 300 rds/second (when it becomes the average power).
Only the muzzle energy is important. The weapon's battery pack must deliver
the muzzle energy to firing circuits before the weapon will fire a second time
(we can assume that the firing circuits can hold one charge). What is an
acceptable delay? At a tenth of a second, the battery pack must have a peak
power of 9000 watts. Unfortunately, we have assumed that everything between
the battery pack and the muzzle is 100% efficient. This is seldom true. So
expecting the infantryman to hump a butch enough battery for a few hundred
shots is a bit much. The batteries will be expensive (due to discharge
requirements), so infantryman may have to lug it back to be recharged.
Explosively compressed coils can convert 25% of an explosive's energy to
electrical output (or they could in the late eighties [IEEE Spectrum
article on high powered microwave weaponry]). A couple of D-cells will
--- Richard and Emily Bell <rlbell@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
> 5g projectile
That's a bit long of a barrel length. But I guess those are workable numbers.
> The discharge rate looks impressive, but it is only
Which ain't gonna happen even with a Gauss SAW.
> Only the muzzle energy is important. The weapon's
OK. . .
> Unfortunately, we > have assumed that everything
I dunno. In Trav, the batteries were built into the magazines. Generally, you
don't just chuck
magazines--you haul 'em back for reload. Presumably
you could design it with pop-out batteries so that
when you speed-load 50 new darts in you also swap out
batteries. I guess it depends on how much battery technology advances. If
batteries get an order of magnitude more efficient it's more plausible than if
they merely get 50% more efficient.
> projectiles and energy (prevents nasty surprises),
Sounds interesting--so how much heat are we talking
about here--more, less, or the same as a modern
machine gun?