OK, last one tonite.
Lanes. Lanes will come in useful for launching counterattacks, etc. must be
marked CLEARLY so that no dumb infantryman get confused and runs into the
wrong place. I advise using counters marked with a >=<
sort of bridge indicator to show a vehicle lane, and a simple >-< to
show a foot-only lane. Note that you can place a Manpack scatterable
mine system in a lane to prevent enemy use if necessary.
Questions, comments, concerns, flames, death threats?
What about a provision to have them only known to the layer (he said layer)?
> -----Original Message-----
> You wrote:
<re: Lanes>
> What about a provision to have them only known to the layer (he said
Kinda difficult. Have to remember, safety first. Unless a lane is clearly
marked, you will have people thinking they are in the lane, only to find out
wrong when they trip a tripwire and send a bounding fragmentation[1] mine up
to wipe out their platoon.
Sorry about that post. I was a little tired when I wrote it.
To clarify: when laying minefields sometimes hidden paths are placed through
them. I can't remember if that was standard or not. They would allow you to go
through them rather than bloking yourself in.
> -----Original Message-----
> You wrote:
> Just a suggestion, if you are basing off US doctrine then there should
I didn't include because most people wait until after battle is over (hence
after Dirtside game is over) to remove their minefields. But yes, minefields
come out of the ground (albeit with more work than it was putting it in)
easily. The exception is scatterable minefields which blow themselves up after
a certain period of time elapses. Why? You don't have neat maps of
*scatter*able minefields.
> You wrote:
I don't think it's standard, but I guess with a GOOD map and identifiable
terrain features to guide you it might be possible. I'm just real hesitant
about going into a minefield (or worse, sending an infantryman into one)
without a garuntee I'm not going to end up some
own-goal.
> At 09:46 15/05/98 -0700, you wrote:
I recall seeing a documentary about Kursk, in which an elderly Red Army
sapper said that Soviet war-produced mines were so edgy and unsafe that
they preferred to use German ones nocturnally "appropriated" from minefields!
Such a practice might happen on the kind of outback world you mention in
your slugthrower post- I'm sure an isolated planet with very small
forces and strict limits on certain munitions would make a worthwhile
minicampaign.
Rob
Now that I think about it having lanes marked was SOP for our mine fields.
Obviously it wouldn't be marked until right before it was needed. If I
remember correctly there was usually a dog leg in it.
Is this something not practised by Americans?
> -----Original Message-----
> John Atkinson wrote:
> Questions, comments, concerns, flames, death threats?
Just a suggestion, if you are basing off US doctrine then there should
probably be a provision for recovering your minefields since that is what we
do. After all mines don't grow on trees.It would become important in campaign
games where the same unit has to fight multiple battles. If it doesn't recover
its minefields then maybe they pay a few extra VPs or what not. (I know that's
scenario specific)
> You wrote:
> As an aside, the unspecified place I just returned from used old
The American M-21 directs most of it's energy straight up (with platter
charge to boot) making it quite useful for some demolitions applications.
<Consumer Safety Warning> But I would NOT RPT NOT reccomend dicking around
with unexploded mines of any nationality for any reason! After a while in the
ground, a fuze can degrade, so that a former requirement of 350 pounds
pressure has become 35 pounds pressure to detonate.
</Consumer Safety Warning>
Yes, I am an old lady when it comes to explosives. I don't want to reduce my
own self to bloody shreds!
> Also, future minefields/mines should have the option to self
Ground sensors >work like that.
Probably so. In a campaign game, yes. In the standard Dirtside II game, not
likely.
> You wrote:
Yes it is. With barbed wire fences and signs to indicate the lane. What I was
objecting to was doing this unmarked (ie hidden on the board) That would
terrify me.
> You wrote:
> I recall seeing a documentary about Kursk, in which an elderly Red
1)It's not something I would do under fire, hence it will not normally show up
in a Dirtside II game. And even if someone tried, the scale would be more
appropriate to Stargrunt.
2)99% of militaries in the 22nd century have perfectly good
night-vision gear. Modern US hunters have damn good stuff, I would not
find it surprising to see them as common as hunting rifles on remote colonies.
3)Regular engineers are not trained to defuze enemy mines. I have only one
option when dealing with enemy mines, and that is to blow them in place.
Special Forces, EOD, et al might disarm them, and guerillas or
long-term veterans may learn to do so, but it's not a real bright idea
generally. Especially with modern anti-handling devices. There is an
Italian AHD which is keyed to the magnetic field of the earth. Move the mine 4
feet in any direction after it's armed, and BOOM. And it's internal, hence
impossible to notice.
Canadian engineers are trained to disarm enemy mines. In fact so are Canadian
infantry. As well, whenever they go to a specific theatre they get trained on
disarming mines that may be found there.
> -----Original Message-----
> Rob Paul wrote:
> I recall seeing a documentary about Kursk, in which an elderly Red
As an aside, the unspecified place I just returned from used old Soviet mines
as the primary source for explosives (used for demo and engineer
ops).
Also, future minefields/mines should have the option to self destruct
after a certain amount of time (user specified) to make them safer to
civilians. Might be some Geneva stipulated mine feature. Ground sensors work
like that.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> 3)Regular engineers are not trained to defuze enemy mines. I have
Just as an aisde (hopefully I won't get kicked for this...) Actually what I
was getting at before is that in many third world countries, they take the old
mines out of the ground, pull them apart, and remove the explosive composition
within. This is how they get explosives for their own demolitions since they
usually don't have the funds to buy their own or the resources to make their
own. It's obviously risky (I see lots of hobbled people walking around), but a
lot of these guys, having been around the stuff for so long have an absolute
callous disregard for the danger. Hell I had dudes walk up and actually
drop unexploded 82mm mortar rounds and POM-Z antipersonnel mines in my
lap. (combined with a devilish grin) After about my third shit fit, combined
with threatening to shoot the next guy who screwed with them, they stopped
messing around.
They take the ordnance, remove the fuze, then melt the explosive out of the
casing with either boiling it or open flame. When it pours out and cools you
have have explosives! With some mines like the Russain stuff, it's literally
got just blocks of TNT inside it that you can just pull out once you've
disarmed it. With grenades, once you ubnscrew teh fuze, you can jsut scoop the
expolisve out with a knife, though it ususlaly crumbles like old cement and
you have to screw with it to make it into something useful. Other mines (like
our claymore) have the putty like C4 in them that you just pull out and shape
in your hands just like play doh.
I'm thinking that given the logistical nightmares of trying to supply outlying
colonies on far flung planets (especially during times of war
between the NAC/ESU whatever), that there will be an even greater
reliance on techniques such as these, and other types of "primitive tech".
We'll see smallish sized units (bn task force etc) garrisoning outposts in
wild west fashion against all these yahoos, while the big powers husband their
forces for the major fights wherever they may be. Low tech wars with a
sprinking of high tech weapons and gadgetry here and there. (Except for the
major fights)
> You wrote:
> Just as an aisde (hopefully I won't get kicked for this...)
Go for it. Just warn me so that I'm way the hell out of blast range.
> You wrote:
> Canadian engineers are trained to disarm enemy mines. In fact so are
Including AHDs and what not? Not my particular piece of pie. Go for it. Just
warn me so I'm out of blast radius. Playing games with foreign mines that
might be boobytrapped or worse is not my idea of fun.
Reminds me of the first US casualty in Bosnia. This was an E-7, so he
should have known better. Tried to disarm a mine with a Leatherman. They found
it embedded in his skull. In my book, he deserves it for gross stupidity.
> I recall seeing a documentary about Kursk, in which an elderly Red
Colonel Fertig of "American Guerilla in the Philippines" tells that they used
the explosives from washed up mines for reloading their ammo. It gave quite a
kick. As a matter of fact the local curtain rods were.30 cal so they cut them
into bullet lengths and the women sat and rubbed them against rocks until they
were pointy. This is how they reloaded their.30 cal ammo before the US got
back in touch with them ( the US never did give them all the stuff they
needed.)
It just goes to show you how little "tech" you need for reloads!
Tom Hughes
> Such a practice might happen on the kind of outback world you mention
So as an American engineer you are not trained in any other way than blowing
in place? Is that the same for booby traps and the like? What doctrine must
you follow if you lack explosives?
Are regular force engineers taught more than national guard units?
I only had a couple of opportunities to work with US forces so I'm real
curious.
Thanks
> -----Original Message-----
Not that I'm an engineer expert or anything but there is a particular breed of
engineer called EOD, that receives training in dealing with that sort of
stuff. Sure regular engineers are trained to recover the mines that they laid,
but at least in peacetime anything trickier is left to EOD. Though they might
learn a bit more in the engineer advanced NCO course. (there is an advanced
engineer course that I read about where you learn more high speed stuff, but
maybe there's a 12B on the list taht can shed some light on it. Of course in
wartime you get everyone and their mother tinkering with stuff if need be,
sometimes unsuccessfully.:(
Still the safest and quickest way to deal with unexploded ordnance and mines
are to blow them in place. Even on the range if someone tosses a grenade that
doesn't go off, the official answer is to blow it in place with a peice of C4
in the US Army.
> John Skelly wrote:
> So as an American engineer you are not trained in any other way than
What
> doctrine must you follow if you lack explosives?
Thanks for the reply.
What you say sounds SOP for Canadian forces as well. We have eods as well. On
my basic pioneer course we did go over BIPping and the role of EODs but were
taught how to disarm devices. This included mines and booby traps. One of the
best days was a day where we split into two teams. Both teams set up parts of
a building with booby traps then each team had to disarm the other team's
booby traps.
> -----Original Message-----
> You wrote:
*Checks most recent orders*
Yeah, I qualify. 12B10. Only high-speed neato course I know of is
Sapper Leader Course, which don' teach EOD. And the EOD wierdos are Ordnance
Corps, not COE, IIRC.
> You wrote:
> So as an American engineer you are not trained in any other way than
What >doctrine must you follow if you lack explosives?
Bingo, yes, and we don't lack explosives. Supposedly. If there is a logistics
problem I guess we just hold a strike or something. Mark it and go around, I
suppose.
The thing about EOD is that a little bit of knowledge is very very dangerous.
Teach an Engineer how to disarm a dozen Rooskie mines and unless he's innately
as cautious as I am, he'll try to disarm anything.
Right up until you find a leatherman imbedded in _his_ skull.
> Are regular force engineers taught more than national guard units?
Not really. They just practice it more often.
> On Fri, 15 May 1998, Thomas E Hughes wrote:
> Colonel Fertig of "American Guerilla in the Philippines" tells that
What did they use for primers?
Somehow I get they feeling that stealing enemy supplies would have been
easier...
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
It
> > gave quite a kick. As a matter of fact the local curtain rods were
There were a few problems with stealing enemy supplies:
1) The Japanese Arisaka rifle was a 6.5mm - less punch and ammo not
compatable w/ Springfield and Garand rifles.
2) Japanese leaders quickly learned not to send out troops w/ excess
ammo.
Neither of these is insurmountable, and USFIP did steal IJA weapons and
ammunition. The use of oddball low-tech reloads for for .30-06 weapons
was done primarily for the purpose of keeping as many weapons in use as
possible.
Chris
> On Mon, 18 May 1998, Christopher E. Ronnfeldt wrote:
> There were a few problems with stealing enemy supplies:
I kind of included stealing guns in stealing supplies.
> Neither of these is insurmountable, and USFIP did steal IJA weapons
But still, I wonder about the primers. I am familiar with the simplicity of
producing firearms and reloading. Actually, producing the guns
themselves is simpler -- all you need is good grade steel and hand
tools.
One Finn made a fully working, original design semi-automatic 9mm pistol
out of scrap metal while at the front. The most complicated tool he used has a
hand file, and the gun is still in working condition. And he was a
shoemaker by trade and training.
Making ammo, OTOH, is harder because it requires chemistry. And the hardest
part of that is making primers. I am not that familiar with explosives, so I
was wondering what did they use because I don't think just plain TNT does the
trick.