> On 14 Aug 2002 at 23:09, Ryan Gill wrote:
> Not every rifleman has a GMS. Every rifleman has something that can
I'm not arguing against having armour 1. I recommend that for scouts. Their
protection should stop rifles and LMGs. HMGs if it is feasible.
My point was that effective anti-armour weapons appear in almost any
squad in the 2183 TO&E, and therefore I don't think they get protection that
really matters in most situations. Might stop some
small arms, but the prevalence of IAVRs and GMS/P make me think that
light armoured vehicles are under severe threat unless they are very very hard
to hit.
> >[Tomb] And I'm arguing in favour of this. But a wheeled armoured car
This is probably true versus most AC and fast tracked too.
You need air search assets.
> Grav can move far too fast for ground recce to do so well.
Drones fill this role nicely.
Like as
> not, they'll be coming to you. Wheeled or something else, its not as
Airborne and satellite recce is still a significant factor.
However, you're going to hear GEV coming from a bloody
> long way off. They aren't going to surprise anyone as scouts. Wheeled
Whereas I think wheeled vehicle weighing multiple tons crinkling
along gravel and dirt are far louder than the utterly silent solid-
state grav technology IMU.:)
This is what I meant when I said it comes down to personal
taste/assumption.
> Which with a Sup ECM and Size 1 Signature and a hull down position,
Yes, that helps. Which is what I was arguing for. But it happens even less if
your scouts end up beating feet most times when the enemy is that close.
> >[Tomb] In a heavy force, I'd hope my scouts are significantly faster
Does the role of finding the enemy, calling down air and artillery assets,
executing sniper missions, etc. change in this case?
No, the only mission that changes is the force on force using the scouts.
Since I am not fond of these situations for my scouts, I might actively
discourage them from arising.
Someting of a proportion of armement. A
> heavy force is more likely to go up against a heavy opponent.
And while your enemy heavy force is spending transit mass and $$ on packing in
heavier armoured scouts with more dismounts (bigger target, harder to stealth,
etc), I'm taking that same mass and $$$ in extra MBTs. I like my chances.
> For WWII as an example, it doesn't do your scouts much good if they
True, but a size 1 grav vehicle with armour 1 and superior ECM and decoys and
whatnot certainly is tough enough defensively. Give it a couple of APSWs and
give the crew some IAVRs and it can probably punch through any road block.
If every system took up space and space wasn't broken down so ungranularly as
size classes, it would make even better sense to have smaller, flatter,
lighter scout vehicles that had very light armament.
Or if
> they are able to locate a key bridge, hold it until relieved.
Putting in size 2 or 3 cav AIFVs instead of size 1 scout buggies isn't going
to give them that much more of a chance to hold here versus a real enemy
force, and the size 1 buggies can hold against light enemy forces just fine.
There
> were more than a few engagements where British Recce unit that had
I wouldn't put my light tanks as recce, but I'd have them available
to assist recce if opportunities came up. As would VTOL-mobile PA.
Also, I don't mind the idea of scout PA (stealthier, a little lighter
armoured, more sensors).
> >[Tomb] Why is 10 scout vehicles in a platoon going to render the job
No? One carries two guys, one carries six. One carries an MG, the
other an MG and possibly a GMS/L or H. Do they really weigh about the
same? (I imagine the HMMWV is actually bigger) Are the logistics (counting
carried crew) equivalent? Doesn't the Ferret require a lot
of special lubricants/etc?
When I made the comparison, I'm talking about heavy scouts like those in M3
CFVs. That would be more logistically challenging than a grav
buggy - being bigger, heavier, and carrying more guys.
What I'm suggesting is more like a grav FAV with light armour. Sort
of like a Grav Ferret. Armed with an MG/APSW.
> Also, I have to point out, in light divisions, the unit recce is far
For that role, I use airmobile PA. Normal vehicles (even heavier ones) and
infantry won't hold out well against PA.... even if they are a little tougher.
Better
> if they are able to carry as much armament as possible. But then of
And did recce units use Guntrucks a lot? Were they using ACAVs
usefully for recce? (debatable how a large diesel/CFE is a good recce
vehicle...), etc.
Your argument about troops who do escort and other such duties picking up
extra firepower to compensate for an undersupply seems to
be a bit off-the-point to me, though I see where you try to make it
fit.
We're talking about a recce unit doing recce taskings for which a lightly
armed and armoured recce vehicle is sufficient (in fact, best suited). If you
want to use your recce guys to babysit convoys, etc., then feel free.
> Point being, I think scouts should be as bear as possible or at least
I won't argue with armour 1 in the current construction system. If I have to
start paying mass for it and slowing down my grav vehicles, then maybe I'll
think twice about it. But for now, armour 1 on a size 1 vehicle makes sense.
If they get stuck in a peacekeeping role
> where they're supposed to use finesse and they can't they get stuck
Peacekeeping requires a whole other force doctrine, training structure, and
equipment loadout. It's highly debatable whether troops well trained and
experienced at peacekeeping make excellent warfighters and vice versa. (this
argument also applies to trying to turn warfighters into police and vice
versa).
So if your scouts are stuck in this kind of role, something isn't too right in
the first place IMO.
> >[Tomb] Yes, speed, stealth, ECM, decoys, smoke, covering artillery
What's the difference between a grav mobile armour 1 jeep and a grav mobile
armour 1 armoured car? Flavourtext. I'm arguing against size 2 or 3 scout
vehicles and heavy armaments.
Something heavier than 18 gauge sheet plastic
> between your scouts and HV rounds coming at them from some militia
This I'm holeheartedly in favour of. Any military vehicle that can be killed
by a 5.56 is underarmoured IMO.
> I personally like wheeled vehicles because its far easier to support
Really? Differentials (possibly multiple ones), complex gearboxes, ball
joints, struts, etc. As opposed to a solid state field generator with no
moving parts that operates from under armour. Hmmmm.... which is more complex
and which is more capable? IMU, grav wins both (justifies the high costs).
And I think spaceportability (and airportability) are issues. IMU anyway.
Perhaps you have unlimited lift capacity in yours.
> Ok, take the Briths Army's FCLV programme. Its based around something
Grav vehicles may well have a big plus here (they can skitter off when a mine
goes off and disipate some of the energy just in movng them and their
suspension isn't exposed).
Such that the troops inside
> will come out with a headache rather than in body bags that someone
I've seen mine tests against the hummer (fitted out correctly). It'll
take a mine without breaching the driver/passenger compartment. The
vehicle probably won't move afterwards, but the crew should be okay.
> This is exactly the kind of light vehicle you seem to advocate. But
No, read what I said: A size 1 grav buggy/bike. Enclosed. Armour 1.
APSW (or 2 x APSW) armament. I'd even argue for size 0.5, given I only want 2
crew.:)
Thre brits plan
> to replace some Saxons, FV432s, Spartans and Landrovers with this
--> 1 vehicle, smaller logistical tail, easier inventory/maintenance
It
> reduces the signature and isn't far off from the ferret if you add a
Make it grav and you have what I'm talking about. But I'm not packing
that weapon station with GMS/H. I'm adding more sensors and comms if
I have excess space. More decoys, aerosol launchers, etc. Maybe even
a couple of trashcan-lid sized fly-by-optical-wire drones. Better at
what they do, not emphasizing what they don't do. (Or shouldn't).
Its really not far off
> from the Humber Scout of WWII vintage. Something with a short
Short, thin (not wide), grav mobile, fast, and stealthy. Great for recce. Also
grav leaves less wake disturbance and it's harder to ID the enemy scout
elements by tracking their tracks IMU.
I don't think you realize just how small 4 wheeled
> armored cars can get.
Is the ferret much smaller than the little german 222? (I think that's the
small German one I've been aboard). I've been to a number of WW2 and later
armour museums (including the Canadian War Museum Vehicle Annex). I know they
can be quite small. But they can't be quite small, super fast, and carry heavy
firepower, defenses and armour. That isn't feasible. So pick a few things. I
pick minimal armour (enough to stop rifles), fast, some light defenses (smoke,
ECM), and some light weapons (APSWs).
My dingo is tiny. Put a more powerful
> power-pack in something of a similar layout and you've got a pretty
This brings up a question I have had.
Size 1 vehicle, Armour 1. If the get shot in the side are they counted as soft
skinned? (DS).
Same thing for an armour 2 vehicle under artillery fire or mines. No top or
bottom armour?
Flying vehicle, are they the same armour all around or 1 less all sides but
front?
On Friday, August 16, 2002 11:24 AM, Roger Books
[SMTP:books@jumpspace.net]
wrote:
> This brings up a question I have had.
Minimum armour is 1, as long as you had at least armour 1 on the front to
begin with.
On or about Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 07:50:14AM -0400, Imre A. Szabo typed:
> Drones are the best way to do recon on a future battlefield.
Assuming that the EW/comms balance is in your favour. If the drone
signal is easily jammed, or the operating team is easily traced, it's less of
an option.
But then again, see http://www.e-sheep.com/spiders/ :-)
> I'm not arguing against having armour 1. I recommend that for scouts.
You forgot shell fragments. You really want to stop shell fragements.
Proximity burst are very lethal to un-armored targets...
> Drones fill this role nicely.
Drones are the best way to do recon on a future battlefield.
> Airborne and satellite recce is still a significant factor.
Depends on who has ships in orbit or if the defending force has significant
ASAT capabilty...
> However, you're going to hear GEV coming from a bloody
Wheeled
> > are as quiet as they come. Noone really knows what grav sounds like.
The way GEV's are detected is by thier audible signiture. Grav vehicles will
have a tremendous of gravity waves at least as bad as the GEV's audible
signiture. Sure you can't hear it, but a cheap sensor could... Now let's put
that sensor into the guidence system of a missile...
> On or about Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 07:50:14AM -0400, Imre A. Szabo
For today, they can be jammed, but in the future, they will be fully
autonomous. So jamming will only stop real time data. The drones could always
fly away from the jamming source and transmit there.
On or about Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 11:35:16AM -0400, Imre A. Szabo typed:
On or about Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 11:35:16AM -0400, Imre A. Szabo typed:
> For today, they [drones]can be jammed, but in the future, they will be
Except that recon drones have such a short lifespan, with hunter/killer
drones and/or anti-recon lasers about, that they have to transmit
immediately. There's some thought of putting sensors in artillery shells,
since the drones aren't going to last much longer than the flight time for a
shell anyway.
(That is...it's all PSB. Pick your flavor and run with it).
From: "Roger Burton West" <roger@firedrake.org>
> But then again, see http://www.e-sheep.com/spiders/ :-)
> At 6:31 PM -0400 8/15/02, kaladorn@magma.ca wrote:
> I'm not arguing against having armour 1. I recommend that for scouts.
Usually something designers try for. Its hard. HMGs are getting bigger and
nastier at their job.
> My point was that effective anti-armour weapons appear in almost any
I never dis-advocated that. My emphesis is that a near hit that
merely damages or bumps a light armored vehicle will destroy a softskin from
blast effects only. HE rounds make it harder too.
> This is probably true versus most AC and fast tracked too.
The air cushion vehicles will allow the wheeled vehicles to stop and hide
first what with their signature. Fast track we already have.
> Airborne and satellite recce is still a significant factor.
Assuming they haven't been knocked out of the sky Hammer's style.
> Whereas I think wheeled vehicle weighing multiple tons crinkling
*shrug* Ok. I guess Grav gets you a free lunch humm?
> Does the role of finding the enemy, calling down air and artillery
Its a question of proportional force ability across the board. But if you want
really heavy armor and scouts that can't defend themselves from militia, let
alone a heavy armor force on the other side of the valley go ahead.
> No, the only mission that changes is the force on force using the
Then your scouts won't be executing counter intelligence gathering?
> And while your enemy heavy force is spending transit mass and $$ on
Except my scouts will eat your scouts for lunch. Then, we'll see who hits who.
> No? One carries two guys, one carries six. One carries an MG, the
Ferret is denser. A friend here in town has a HMMWV and a Ferret. We've had
all three vehicles out at an event. The ferret is taller but not as long. Its
also almost as wide, but not quite. The Dingo when I've had it out off road is
able to do some amazing feats over some really rough ground. Having armor all
over the place and huge bullet proof suspension components is really really
nice. No alloy there, its all steel.
> When I made the comparison, I'm talking about heavy scouts like those
Bradlys seem too large for their role. Something smaller really makes more
sense. I'm stuck on the WWII british recce units. Maybe something the size of
the Fox Armored car from the 70's and 80s. Good compact size, albeit top
heavy. Good weapon, low weight.
> What I'm suggesting is more like a grav FAV with light armour. Sort
Not a bad idea.
> For that role, I use airmobile PA. Normal vehicles (even heavier
PA probably has problems with long duration marches. How do you scout on the
move?
> And did recce units use Guntrucks a lot? Were they using ACAVs
Well, they performed route recce, a role of scouts. Point being, the crews
added extra MGs to the vehicles because the situation warranted it. The brass
had a fit because of the "unauthorized" gunshields and M60's on the loaders
side of the M47 and M48s. The crews simply made sure there weren't easily seen
gunmounts. As a result the Loaders didn't have gunshields. I wonder how many
troopers died because the brass got upset about a triviality in a warzone.
In that kind of war, the recce units had to put lots of fire on an ambush to
kill it. Generally they could. In Vietnam tanks were actually very well used
and very useful for the fight. With every MG and weapon on a tank firing
things were pretty good. They even put the gunner on the back deck with an M60
while the loader serviced the
Main Gun. The Commander controlled the main-gun with his override and
fired the coax by virtue of either a lanyard or kicking the rear plate with
his boot (worked on one kind of gun). Main Gun, Coax,
Commander's mg and an M60+M79. 3-5 of those M47 or M48s and several
more ACAVS is a lot of lead into an ambush. Thats a heck of a lot of
suppression going down range.
> We're talking about a recce unit doing recce taskings for which a
Guess what, sometimes recce units are the supply convoy. Happened in WWII in a
few instances. Turretless M5's from the recce troop were used in some British
armored divisons to get supplies up quickly.
> Peacekeeping requires a whole other force doctrine, training
Guess what. It's reality. The folks that get shipped off to such functions are
typically using the same gear. Britains recce units provided a significant
portion of the internal security armor for road duties in Northern Ireland.
Ferrets and Saracens abounded in Bandit country. Saladins were there too. The
Pigs came later, then came the piglets.
> What's the difference between a grav mobile armour 1 jeep and a grav
Ahh. So you thought ferrets were big stinking vehicles? You need to buy
yourself some armor or go to an event.
> Really? Differentials (possibly multiple ones), complex gearboxes,
Guess what. HMMWV have portal axles. They have complex gear boxes. So do
Unimogs. That's why all three vehicles have similar cross country performance.
Fully independent suspension that's driven on all wheels. Thats how you avoid
wheel slip. The ferret does it in a nice old fashioned way with 1940's tech.
Hard to beat that for maintainablity. The difference with the Mogs and HMMWVs
is they probably leak less. Seal technology can really help. So can
manufacturing and casting methods.
There are sevearl AFV designs that are going on some extant truck chassis.
Nations that already have that truck in inventory really like AFV components
that are directly taken from their logistics vehicles. The Ferret had
significant parts commonality with the Saracens, Saladins, Stalwarts and
Champ. Does the M1 Abrams have parts commonality with anything in the US force
structure? Does the LAV?
Noone's agreed on how GRAV works our more specifically sounds. I think
TANSTAAFL will drive GRAV to be a noisy technology. Wheels are pretty quiet on
the road. Tracks are louder. GEV is positively worse, GRAV must scream.
> And I think spaceportability (and airportability) are issues. IMU
Well, lessee, Ferret Airportable in a C130. Similar armored vehicles that are
being looked at by the Brits for this service are to be C130 portable. Its a
good benchmark.
> Grav vehicles may well have a big plus here (they can skitter off
Whats setting off the mine? Probably some kind of field flux. If you can repel
gravity, you can use detectors to swivel the charge at the vehicle.
> I've seen mine tests against the hummer (fitted out correctly). It'll
Should or will? I've heard of a few guys getting hurt by Mine explosions.
We're talking AntiTank mines here. Not AP mines. But then I guess countries
like Rhodesia, South African and others that had to play in mine infested
areas the hard way invested money for nothing if the HMMWV is so mine
resistant. The same could be said for Austrailia's new Digger Mover Truck as
well as a number of other wheeled AFV technologies.
> Short, thin (not wide), grav mobile, fast, and stealthy. Great for
Cant carry much gear can you? Long road marches. You should have seen how the
Brits loaded down their Royal Engineer route recce elements. In later years
Ferrets grew a rear stowage basket over the rear engine deck. I'm not sure
what those RE guys carried, but there was a lot of it from the photo's I've
seen.
> I don't think you realize just how small 4 wheeled
Not by much. Thats probably a size 2. Ferret would be size 1-2.
> German one I've been aboard). I've been to a number of WW2 and later
Well, a vehicle that carries 6 guys with combat gear is far bigger than a
ferret. LAVs are huge compared to a ferret or a dingo. Vertical signature on
the ferret is 6'. Compared to tanks they look like a field mouse sneaking
across the battle field.
> No doubt. If you want to emphasize wheeled vehicles in your universe.
Cheap and easy to get parts mfged on remote worlds. Common with the logistics
vehicles. Mine resitant hulls are easy to gravt onto standard truck chassis.
> I never dis-advocated that. My emphesis is that a near hit that
And stopping fragments is good sense since everything from a rifle GL up will
have fragmentation options.
> The air cushion vehicles will allow the wheeled vehicles to stop and
Hiding vehicles will become less and less simple as sensors continue to
advance. There is a
balance thing between capability and counter-
capability, but I think the hiders have been losing ground steadily for the
last few years and see this trend continuing. It also helps to justify the
underlying "I know where it all is" assumptions of the DS2 game.
> >Whereas I think wheeled vehicle weighing multiple tons crinkling
Pardon?
Have you examined the DS2 cost of a grav mobility type?
I hardly call that "a free lunch".
> >Does the role of finding the enemy, calling down air and artillery
And if you want to build your scouts to be capable of defending themselves
versus heavy armour with the associated weights, costs, and logistics
penalties, go ahead. I fancy my chances in a campaign.;)
> >No, the only mission that changes is the force on force using the
If it means tackling enemy scout formations that are heavily armed and
armoured, I'll probably
use my rapid reaction forces - mobile infantry
and light armour. I can afford to do this
because my de-emphasis of this role for scouts
means I have more of them with me than your
more heavy-scout equipped force.
> >And while your enemy heavy force is spending transit mass and $$ on
And my reaction forces will kill your scouts. This boils down to "does too!"
"does not!". A pointless argument hereafter.
> >No? One carries two guys, one carries six. One carries an MG, the
So its quite heavy, relatively speaking? (knowing the hummer is not light, I
ask because I'm assuming your little AC is heavier?)
> >When I made the comparison, I'm talking about heavy scouts like those
And what is your opinion of the Scorpion or the Scimitar? Or the Coyote?
> >For that role, I use airmobile PA. Normal vehicles (even heavier
That's a different concern. My ability to tackle a force once a fight is
imminent is a tad different than my ability to move over distance. My scouts
don't spend a lot of time marching
around in PA. The PA is merely on-call if the
scouts hit something they need help to crack.
> >And did recce units use Guntrucks a lot? Were they using ACAVs
This may boil down to: Did they have the right equipment for the task? Were
they being assigned a task to which they were not suited?
> In that kind of war, the recce units had to put lots of fire on an
> From what I've seen of that war, American
Generally speaking, the amount of ammo fired into open space in that conflict
was rather ludicrously large. (Just looking at stats in comparison to other
conflicts).
Generally they could. In Vietnam tanks were
> actually very well used and very useful for the fight. With every MG
True. Although one suspects that a more effective capability at route scouting
might have removed some of the dangers of this kind of event.
> >We're talking about a recce unit doing recce taskings for which a
So, you're arguing that because sometimes unit types get used for taskings
they aren't really designed for, they should be equipped for those tasks?
Pardon?
Do your MBTs all have engineer vehicle capability? Do your MPs all have
capability for Medevac? This seems a rather specious argument to me.
> >Peacekeeping requires a whole other force doctrine, training
Yes, reality sometimes dictates troops are dispatched for tasks they are ill
suited for. And sometimes they improvise improvements over the objections of
the brass. However, this doesn't exactly suggest that one should prepare every
unit for every task, now does it?
> >What's the difference between a grav mobile armour 1 jeep and a grav
No, but when you talk about scouts able to stand off MBTs or hold bridges
against main force elements, I don't think size 1 cuts the mustard. So I
presume some larger CFVs with more firepower. Or do you think a formation of
size 1 ferrets can handle enemy heavy forces? If so, I think you'll find out
differently at the game table...;)
> >Really? Differentials (possibly multiple ones), complex gearboxes,
Yep. Moving parts. Outside of armour. Prone to breakage. And providing cross
country performance worse than a grav vehicle by a longshot, given DS2 terrain
effects tables.
The ferret does it in a nice
> old fashioned way with 1940's tech. Hard to beat that for
You actually think that anything with moving parts is easier to maintain than
a solid state solution?
I can't argue with you factually about how grav drives are implemented, I just
have ideas
gleaned from various sources of sci-fi. I don't
even think they produce a huge grav signature because I don't think other
objects (rocks, trees, etc) do. I think of grav drive as mostly cancelling
existing mass. But I do think of it as a solid state solution with few or no
moving parts, entirely deployed under armour (the last part for sure meets GZG
canon).
So it is superior IMU to wheeled solutions for maintainability and performance
over rough terrain and for survivability versus enemy fire.
How well does your little ferret perform after it has its tires torn off? Or
an axle busted?
> There are sevearl AFV designs that are going on some extant truck
And do grav scout vehicles have commonalities of parts with grav trucks or
grav jeeps or grav air rafts? Quite possibly.
Yes, wheeled AC that have common parts with trucks and jeeps make sense on the
frontier. But I didn't think we were arguing about what the colonial militia
would have, but what a main force element supplied from the Core might have.
Different ball of wax.
> Noone's agreed on how GRAV works our more specifically sounds. I
By your argument, electric cars should be louder than CFE.....
Last time I drove down a gravel road (today), I noted quite a lot of noise in
my wheeled vehicle.
And as for "Grav must scream", neither you nor I have anything more than our
own opinions,
thus again rendering this a fine "does too/does
not" point.
> >And I think spaceportability (and airportability) are issues. IMU
Sure, and I think I can fit 2 or even 3 of my chosen gravbuggy designs in a
130 cargo bay. So what? It's utterly conjectural on my part and on yours.
> >Grav vehicles may well have a big plus here (they can skitter off
Perhaps. Expensive mines you make. Hope you don't plan to lay them over a very
wide area or have a very rich backer......
More likely the large mass of metal floating 1m off the surface.
If you
> can repel gravity, you can use detectors to swivel the charge at the
Yep, and if grav is expensive (ref DS2 costs),
you'd think grav-sensing mines would be
costlier too. And mines are NOT something you want to make expensive if you
plan ubiquitous deployment.
> >I've seen mine tests against the hummer (fitted out correctly). It'll
So am I.
But then
> I guess countries like Rhodesia, South African and others that had to
Ever occur to you that some of those decisions about what to buy and where it
is made have a lot to do with who might sell you anything (or be prohibited
from same) and by political factors that apply like who it will create
jobs/income for? After all, Canada didn't want
US desert camo for Afghanistan because (according to DND brass) it would hurt
the morale of the troops. (Yes, as an infanteer, I often found being better
hidden from my enemies to be disturbing to my morale.....)
The same could be said for
> Austrailia's new Digger Mover Truck as well as a number of other
These enjoy benefits over tracked in terms of
long-range capabilities and maintainability,
probably as or more important than the better
off-road performance of the tracked vehicles.
And they weren't really comparable to grav either.:) And I'll bet many of
these solutions are cheaper than the US hummer and I'll bet THAT factors more
heavily than anything.
Besides, with a lot of these designs, you hit a
mine, blow a wheel/axle off, and have a simple
repair. The hummer might require a depot job. But it IS survivable for the
inside
crew/passengers. To a point. Like most things,
I'm sure the right type of mine, right size of mine, etc will kill it. But I'm
sure the same is true of these Wheeled Wonders (TM).
> >Short, thin (not wide), grav mobile, fast, and stealthy. Great for
Gee, plenty of infanteers have been heaped up with gear before, much of which
was eventually determined to be excessive. Would that be a historical first?
Why do you assume, not knowing what it was, that it was necessary? Rather than
say "mandated"?
And if your vehicle is simply repaired (for the user serviceable parts) with
minimal effort (or if, say, you don't have as much risk of suspension damage
during travel in rough conditions), then you suddenly need a lot less junk
carried around.
> >Is the ferret much smaller than the little german 222? (I think
So I have some idea.
> >German one I've been aboard). I've been to a number of WW2 and later
Yep. And my grav buggies would have about the same height. Maybe be slightly
narrower. But it you want something that will stand off heavy elements, or
carry larger dismount scout sections, you're gonna need something bigger.
Especially if you want to carry all that gear that you're talking about. And
ammo and fire control etc. for your heavier AT weapons.
> >No doubt. If you want to emphasize wheeled vehicles in your universe.
All fair statements.
Detectable sonic signatures, exposed suspension parts and wheels requiring
more
spares, poorer all-terrain performance (tell me,
how do they do through water or cultivated? not as good as grav), and larger
size if they want to carry effective AT armament and ammo for same.
I'm not saying wheeled recce isn't a fine idea, but its a fine idea for
colonial forces. And those who envision grav systems to scream like a howling
banshee even though they cost mutliples of a wheeled suspension.;)
That's a nifty piece of work, spiders or no. I had to keep reminding myself,
this didn't happen.
> Roger Burton West wrote:
> On or about Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 07:50:14AM -0400, Imre A. Szabo typed:
> On Sat, 17 Aug 2002, Alan and Carmel Brain wrote:
> From: "Roger Burton West" <roger@firedrake.org>
Surreal & brilliant. Nice to know some good political art is coming out of the
web! (heck, some good art period...)
> Brendan Robertson wrote:
> Minimum armour is 1, as long as you had at least armour 1 on the front
DS2 reference, please? I can't find any such rule - and if there isn't
one, DS2 p.10 is quite clear that a vehicle with frontal armour 1 would count
as "softskinned" (armour 0) against fire from any other direction.
Later,
On Tuesday, August 20, 2002 5:40 AM, Oerjan Ohlson
> [SMTP:oerjan.ohlson@telia.com] wrote:
Hmmm.... misunderstanding on my part. Makes size 1 combat walkers even more
useless.
--- "Robertson, Brendan"
> <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:
Brendan
Not really, 'front' is 180 degrees, as is the 'back'. Problem solved! Another
option is to consider all armor one vechiles to be 'unsrmored' with a piece of
boilerplate stuck on the front.
Bye for now,
> John Leary wrote:
> > Hmmm.... misunderstanding on my part. Makes size 1
If you're using house rules, yes. Otherwise the front arc tends to be a bit
narrower on most models - even walkers :-/
> Another option is to consider all armor one vechiles
That's precisely what the rules currently say.
Rgds,
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> >Another option is to consider all armor one
While I was trying to be funny, this will have a very depressing effect on the
Power Armor(PA) crowd.
Bye for now,
> At 6:51 AM +0200 8/21/02, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
Which is not granular enough to reflect current vehicle design or old vehicle
design. Another problem with the details of the vehicle design rules.
> John Leary wrote:
> >>Another option is to consider all armor one vechiles
No, only on the Walker crowd. In DS2 PA are classed as "infantry", so they
only have one armour rating all around. Size 1 walkers however are
"vehicles", so their armour varies :-/
(Of course that means that the walkers are as hard to kill from the
side/rear with anti-personnel weapons as PA are from the front, but you
can't currently hit PA with IAVRs...)
Regards,
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> >While I was trying to be funny, this will have a
So my infantry crewed multi-person powered armor
with wheeled or tracked feet have armor 1 all around! Good deal!
;-)
Bye the way, Barney Rubbles kids are my crews!!!
Bye for now,