Michael said: That's a partisan force that won't be operating very long! If a
scout force disappears any military worth worrying about is going to react
very strongly. On the other hand it might be a good way to set up a a trap, so
the reaction force should be careful on the way in.
[Tomb] I said they were partisans, not "bright partisans!". ;)
It was, as I mentioned, off the top of my head. And of course your main force
might dispatch aide. But it might also be the next scenario we're talking
about: After having mopped up the scouts, the remainder of the partisans and
the infantry platoon must then face the rescue forces sent to recover the
missing scouts (or exact retribution for them).
And of course, maybe all possible rescuers end up diverted to other
fights....
I'm interested by the suggestion scouts need armour. I can see this versus
small arms, but since pretty much every infantry force in DS
terms (and in SG often) bears either IAVRs, GMS/P, GMS/L or a
combination of the above (and some have APSWs), I don't think armour 1 or even
armour 2 scouts are protected that well.
Ferrets/Dingos/Scimitars/etc.... they might stop small arms, but they
won't stop an IAVR or GMS/P.
I think what you would want would be highly manouverable, fast, quiet
scouts - stealthy in most spectra. This implies small (size 1) grav
vehicles (probably with stealth on top, though DS limits target die size...)
and good sensors. Maybe think grav buggy or enclosed grav bike. Armour 1 by
default... enough to stop most rifles, but not enough to convince the scout
personel to act like tankers. Armed? Maybe an HMG(APSW). Enough to deter some
infantry found close in (maybe an argument for APFC belts) but not much else.
The main thing for the scout would be great sensor suites and that would be
aided by
a stealthy vehicle (providing less noise/interference to the
sensors).
These kind of picket-buggies would have a crew of 2 (sensor
operator/driver). They'd have some detachable sensors and
spotter/designator gear. This would allow them to do FAO/FAC taskings
and to check out buildings and such. If engaged, they'd rely on their low
signature, their high speed (EVASION!), decoys, ECM, smoke, etc to break
contact and escape. The APSW would only serve to defend them if they really
putzed it and found enemy infantry right on top of them.
Organized in 3 vehicle patrols, a platoon might include 3 of these and a
command vehicle (10 buggies) for a total of 20 scouts.
Sniper teams could get a version of the two man buggy that has the stealth,
but slightly downgraded sensor suites (leaving room for the
HAMR or LasRifle). But these units could still do FAC/FAO ops would
also only want to see the enemy "at a distance". Put in one three vehicle
patrol of snipers for 6 more men. You're up to 26 men in your
scout/sniper platoon.
Don't give them anti-armour capability - you don't want to encourage
them to try to take on tanks. Don't give them heavier weapons than
self-defense ones to engage infantry. Their purpose is to see the
enemy and not be seen, to call arty or air assets into play, to execute sniper
missions against enemy personel and equipment, etc.
Their light size/capability also reduces the odds of them being used
as a "commander's guard".
T.
TomB said:
> scouts - stealthy in most spectra. This implies small (size 1) grav
Of course, you could make the same vehicle into a tank destroyer by
mounting GMS/H or fixed-mount DFFG/2.
> At 11:45 AM -0400 8/13/02, kaladorn@magma.ca wrote:
Its a question of being so vulnerable that even a guy with a machine gun can
fire at you from a pretty good distance. IAVRs, well, you've got to be 400
meters (4") for those to be a problem. GMS's well, there are far fewer of
those out there. And they have to get through your ECM. With a size one and
really good ECM, a scout vehicle is going to be a tough target. Getting them
to shoot a little bit isn't always bad. It reveals their position.
> [quoted text omitted]
snip
> Don't give them anti-armour capability - you don't want to encourage
Well, one of the roles of scouts is sometimes anti-scouting. Or
counte-recce. You want them to be able to ambush the red force scouts
so you have to give them something more. In a heavy force, it really makes
sense as then you can always have a detachment of tanks backing them up if
they really need support.
> Their light size/capability also reduces the odds of them being used
It also makes it harder for them to do their job in the first place. Training
is a far better means of preventing bad use of equipment than hamstringing the
equipment. After all, they've got their asses hanging out in the wind for all
of red force to shoot at. They've got to have some capability. I prefer a
light heavy format so that the really small light stuff can search and spot
with out being seen with a slightly larger vehicle to help fight when things
go into the toilet.
> At 12:08 PM -0400 8/13/02, laserlight@quixnet.net wrote:
Bing!
Daimler Ferret Mk2/6. Taking a light, air portable recce vehicle and
adding anti tank missiles to it. Suddenly you've got a light, air portable
tank killer with a good capability and better maneuverability than 4 guys in
their boots.
Ryan took issue:
> I'm interested by the suggestion scouts need armour. I can see this
Its a question of being so vulnerable that even a guy with a machine gun can
fire at you from a pretty good distance.
[Tomb] This I agree with (Hi David, when's the Badger MkIII out?).
IAVRs, well, you've got to be 400 meters (4") for those to be a problem. GMS's
well, there are far fewer of those out there.
[Tomb] Pardon? Ever seen standard SG2 TO&Es? I seem to see one in
just about every squad. And that's often ON TOP of IAVRs. GMS/P are
common and GMS/L appear fairly often too.
And they have to get through your ECM. With a size one and really good ECM, a
scout vehicle is going to be a tough target.
[Tomb] And I'm arguing in favour of this. But a wheeled armoured car
can't run from grav or AC tanks! You don't have the terrain/mobility
to manage.
Getting them to shoot a little bit isn't always bad. It reveals their
position.
[Tomb] Getting them to MISS is the important part.
> Don't give them anti-armour capability - you don't want to encourage
Well, one of the roles of scouts is sometimes anti-scouting. Or
counte-recce. You want them to be able to ambush the red force scouts
so you have to give them something more.
[Tomb] Or do you? Snipers.... APSWs, maybe give them some IAVRs (fine
use from ambush since the vehicles are very concealable too), artillery and
air observation.... I think they'll do just fine in ambush.
In a heavy force, it really makes sense as then you can always have a
detachment of tanks backing
[Tomb] In a heavy force, I'd hope my scouts are significantly faster
and lighter. I know they'll be able to call on big brother (tanks) and
artillery assets. I don't want to turn them into tankers. That
kind of mentality leads to dead people - just like AIFVs thinking
that slugging matches with tanks are a winning proposition.
> Their light size/capability also reduces the odds of them being used
It also makes it harder for them to do their job in the first place.
[Tomb] Why is 10 scout vehicles in a platoon going to render the job
tough to do? Small, fast grav bike/buggies will allow very rapid
mobility, quiet movement, and will probably allow sensors to function better.
This is bad how? And having 10 vehicles lets you cover a fair amount of
ground. You have limited dismount capability, but a patrol
of 3 can get 3 or 4 guys to go check out hamlets/etc. And remote
sensing will be quite a bit improved by then (look at what you can do now!).
And the trade off is small vehicles, hard to detect, light to transport, and a
fewer number of scouts (slightly), which translates to a smaller logistics
tail. The only item that is high is cost (assuming expense of grav).
Training is a far better means of preventing bad use of equipment than
hamstringing the equipment. After all, they've got their asses hanging out in
the wind for all of red force to shoot at. They've got to have some
capability.
[Tomb] Yes, speed, stealth, ECM, decoys, smoke, covering artillery
and manouver units. Their capability is to avoid detection and where that
fails, to break contact quickly and efficiently even under fire. While your
Ferrets are puttering along in the mud getting hosed by
anyone with a GAC/1 or a DFFG/1, the grav bikes are headed for the
horizon with foot to the floor. They're smaller, much faster, have
better caps re water/swamp/etc and can move evasive (try that with a
wheeled vehicle).
I prefer a light heavy format so that the really small light stuff can search
and spot with out being seen with a slightly larger vehicle to help fight when
things go into the toilet.
[Tomb] That's what I bring light mobile forces (armoured infantry and
light tanks) for. Light tanks make a nice reaction force - fast, and
with enough punch to slow up larger armoured forces and to do in forces of
enemy scout vehicles, mech infantry, etc. Again, not designed to stop dead a
main force thrust, but having a specific
purpose (harriers/flankers/rapid strike). I don't want my very
expensive, very well trained, very sneaky scouts to be out gunfighting if I
can avoid it. That's what I have line doggies for.
[Tomb] Like most discussions, this comes down to philosophy,
background, and the kind of campaigns/games you play. Or, in reality,
to the kind of budgets, logistics, and other practical concerns that would
apply. I think the GZGverse argues for light forces, smaller in number, and if
you're gonna spend to ship troops across space, you're sending good quality
troops and gear because transport costs make sending poor troops or crappy
gear insane. And since you want to save your limited lift cap for serious
hitters (MRLS, MBTs, etc) and some
gropos and support assets (various apc variants/mortars/GMS
platforms), you don't want to take up too much space with scouts, engineers,
etc. You want them. You need them (no engineers and no scouts equals very
dead). But you want to have the right balance and not attrit your striking
force by using too much of your lift cap for support elements. So making them
light, fast, and encouraging them to stay alive is important.
> [Tomb] Pardon? Ever seen standard SG2 TO&Es? I seem to see one [GMS]
Nah, just every platoon.
> And they have to get through
...and staying behind cover...
> a scout vehicle is going to be a tough target.
> [Tomb] In a heavy force, I'd hope my scouts are significantly faster
That IS a winning proposition. For the tanks.
> [Tomb] I think the GZGverse argues for light forces, smaller in
If transport were all *that* expensive, you wouldn't have all these populated
planets to begin with. You'd have a few, highly balkanized places close to
Earth. I don't think it's transport cost, I think it's response time. If you
need a widget, you can't FedEx it in, you have to send a message by ship for a
few weeks, then wait a few more weeks to get it back. That encourages lower
tech units that with gear
> At 6:48 PM -0400 8/13/02, kaladorn@magma.ca wrote:
Not every rifleman has a GMS. Every rifleman has something that can damage a
soft skin vehicle. Its about giving them some protection. If you want super
sneaky scouts, get some NAC SAS or Ghurkas to sneak out and slit some Eurie
throats.
> And they have to get through
Granted. But if you're up against Grav, then you need to have more than guys
out doing recce in vehicles. You need air search assets. Grav can move far too
fast for ground recce to do so well. Like as not, they'll be coming to you.
Wheeled or something else, its not as big a deal. However, you're going to
hear GEV coming from a bloody long way off. They aren't going to surprise
anyone as scouts. Wheeled are as quiet as they come. Noone really knows what
grav sounds like. I figure youve got some kind of rotational field generating
coil that makes a subsonc humm that'll have ever farm dog for miles howling.
> Getting them to shoot a little bit isn't
Which with a Sup ECM and Size 1 Signature and a hull down position, it's
likely to occur if its going to happen at all.
> Don't give them anti-armour capability - you don't want to encourage
Not advocating turning them into tankers. What I'm saying is that in a heavy
force it doesn't much makes sense to have scouts that are underarmed and
underarmored. Someting of a proportion of armement. A heavy force is more
likely to go up against a heavy opponent. Likewise the cav units are as well.
For WWII as an example, it doesn't do your scouts much good if they can't get
past a single road block of a few guys on a key road. Or if they are able to
locate a key bridge, hold it until relieved. There were more than a few
engagements where British Recce unit that had the punch of light tanks were
able to at least hold positions until the Churchills and Cruiser tanks got
there to help.
> [Tomb] Why is 10 scout vehicles in a platoon going to render the job
there isn't too much of a difference in the logistics tail between a HMMWV and
a Daimler Ferret. They both have similar sound signatures. One is far more
likely to survive a light ambush.
Also, I have to point out, in light divisions, the unit recce is far more
likely to be sent on hard fast rushes to grab something. Better if they are
able to carry as much armament as possible. But then of course, you can take
the General's argument that has confounded the trooper in the field who
doesn't really know what he's doing. Such troopers come up with things like
extra guns and shields for the loaders on the Cav tanks, ACAVs and GunTrucks.
All with weapons and armor they scrounged. Their TO&E doesn't list it as
required. So the poorly imaginative brass get's its undies in a wad when they
see such things. Never mind that the man on the spot really needs the extra
kit.
Point being, I think scouts should be as bear as possible or at least have
some kind of armor. If they get stuck in a peacekeeping role where they're
supposed to use finesse and they can't they get stuck out on a limb.
> Training is a far better means of preventing bad use of equipment
These could be Grav ferrets. Something. I'm saying rather than a jeep, an
armored car. Something heavier than 18 gauge sheet plastic between your scouts
and HV rounds coming at them from some militia that weren't where they were
supposed to be.
I personally like wheeled vehicles because its far easier to support them.
Since the NAC is using them as part of their TO&E, it makes sense as a scout
vehicle. Airportablity isn't an issue.
> [Tomb] Like most discussions, this comes down to philosophy,
Ok, take the Briths Army's FCLV programme. Its based around something like the
HMMWV, but its far more survivable than they are when it comes to mines and
small arms. They are built to protect the crew from mine explosions
particularly well. Such that the troops inside will come out with a headache
rather than in body bags that someone scraped the remains into.
This is exactly the kind of light vehicle you seem to advocate. But still want
to seem to stick them into a Land Rover. Thre brits plan to replace some
Saxons, FV432s, Spartans and Landrovers with this platform. Its a compromise
between all, and saves them a bunch. It reduces the signature and isn't far
off from the ferret if you add a manned turret vs a remote weapons station.
Its really not far off from the Humber Scout of WWII vintage. Something with a
short wheelbase, wide track, weapons station on top and low signature is great
for recce. I don't think you realize just how small 4 wheeled armored cars can
get. My dingo is tiny. Put a more powerful
power-pack in something of a similar layout and you've got a pretty
nice package for the crew.
> On 14-Aug-02 at 23:11, Ryan Gill (rmgill@mindspring.com) wrote:
> Granted. But if you're up against Grav, then you need to have more
Depends, if you have detectors that can detect grav propulsion systems you may
know where an active grav vehicle is at all times. This would be one good
reason that all military vehicles aren't grav.