> Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca> wrote:
from a future army point of view, might it be that the introduction of power
armour, with which the strength and speed of the biological component of the
infantryperson are all but irrelevant, would remove this problem altogether?
it might also be interesting in that the attributes which make a good
footsoldier become not physical (eyesight is less important when you
have a big computerised image-intesified optical/ir scope and a
millimetre-wave radar; fine motor control is less important when your
gun is aimed by a linear actuator controlled by a computer-assisted
neural jack) but mental, eg the ability to quickly perceieve the flow of
battle, figure out where the enemy is hiding, effectively work the suit, etc.
thus, it is no longer the archetypal/stereotypical big, heavily built,
tough-arse bruce willis type who makes a good soldier, but the
physically inept but quick-thinking nerds. revenge is sweet!
of course, this is already true in many/most branches of the infantry,
especially special forces, engineers, etc.
> tom.anderson@altavista.net wrote:
> from a future army point of view, might it be that the introduction of
You are correct about the physical component, but the true problem of
male/female integration in combat units has always been an
emotional/social problem, based on male belief of superiority, and how
women react to all male close knit primary groups, not really a physical
problem. However you make an interesting point. Power Armor could take away an
excuse to dislike women in the infantry.
> it might also be interesting in that the attributes which make a good
Eyesight has not been an issue in the twentieth century since infantry
are only required with vision correctable to 20/20. Before that I bet
half the guy in the infantry since time immemorial were half blind. And hand
eye coordination has never ever been a domain of male dominance.
> but mental, eg the ability to quickly perceieve the flow of battle,
This remains important. Though the basic characteristic of any regular
infantryman will still remain the ability to follow orders and do what your
told, and perform your basic skills to standard. Reminds me of a few weeks ago
when I had my cousin (a gifted Quake player) and a few others over and was
teaching them room clearing tactics for the new (and excellent) Rainbow Six
multiplayer game at our house. He kept on breaking ranks and getting us all
killed. "Oh we should do this when we go into the room or that blah blah." I
told him, no. you should do exactly what your f***ing told. Even if we all go
into the room and get killed. As long as we did it together, then that's a
start. First we start moving as one and working as a team, then we'll figure
out how best to tackle the situation. It was amusing to behold, especially
after I reigned him in and we started performing the tasks correctly. But it's
true, you don't need some gifted shooter or someone that can thread a needle
with a thread with one finger, you just need a bunch of average guys that will
do what they're told. Skill and more importantly, exeperience will come later,
working under the tutelage of an experienced leader.
> thus, it is no longer the archetypal/stereotypical big, heavily built,
HERE COMES A DISSERTATION ON THE TYPICAL SOLDIER.....
This statement Quoted above alludes to the sad trap that what we see in the
movies is true in real life. Are there any civilian types that don't believe
this? It's amazing how often you hear it. The typical soldier, even in special
forces, has always been an average looking guy, somewhere between 5'6" and
5'9" 135lb to 180 lbs, not a Bruce Willis type. That's purely a figment of
Hollywood's imagination. Endurance has always been the primary critical
physical trait fo a good soldier, not brute strength. Size has never helped
anyone hump a rucksack 20 miles, which is the overriding single most improtant
thing an infnatryman has done since long before the Romans. If you saw any guy
on my Operational detachment walking down the street on his own, it would not
necessarily occur to you that he is in Special Forces. Nothing would stand out
about any one of them that would strike you as the archetypical Hollywood SF
soldier. I suppose it doesn't help when you get clowns like Marcinco writing
these complete BS accounts of how all the guys on his team brench press
"500lbs and go into town every night looking for fights in order to build
small unit cohesion". This type of stuff is
pure fantasy. Staright out of Sgt Rock-type comics.
In all the time I've been in neither myself nor anyone else I know has ever
been able to look at a guy getting ready to go through Special Forces
Selection and say: That dude is definately goingh to make it based on
appearance. Sure the Bruce Willis, Schwartzenegger types think they will, but
it often is not so. It's easy to point of people that definately won't make
it. Most of your cocky types, most of your pudgy types, any one who's out of
shape, poeple that like to draw attention to themselves. But I've never been
able to view a "perfect looking" soldier type and say, this guy is definaetly
gonna make it and be 100% sure. Some of the most toughest surest, looking guys
crap out, while walter middy who kept his mouth shut, didn't get hurt, and did
what he needed to help himself and his team get through.
> Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca> wrote:
You won't always be in the suit. The mission may require reduced
equipment, or your suit may be down (yup, infantry gets system-down
chits!) and you have to abandon it in favor of immediate survival.
- Sam
> At 09:20 13/09/98 -0400, you wrote:
The US and the Brits did studies of infantry action from WWII (the US maybe
later as well). One of the things they found was that your best grunt had the
education to go on to university and was often already there. Such soldiers
fired less ammo and killed more of the enemy than other members of their units
(this is generally speaking). If this is the case in warfare now, then by
removing physical requirements (ie using power armour) you make it possible to
select your infantry in the same way you do fighter jocks. Just don't ever
expect the military to drop physical standards altogether and for there to be
enough people with the "right stuff" to fill your battilons.
> You wrote:
> from a future army point of view, might it be that the introduction of
Step 1, NO army can afford power armor for all it's troops. I know in
my background, I've got four divisions completely power-armored. Plus
about 40 or 50 with no power armor at all. In the 'official' backgrounds, we
see in Stargrunt that most units are unarmored.
> it might also be interesting in that the attributes which make a good
Pet Peeve: Eyesight has not been that big a deal since they invented
eyeglasses. I speak from the perspective of a man with 20/400 vision
in one eye and 2/200 in the other.
> thus, it is no longer the archetypal/stereotypical big, heavily built,
This joker has never been the best soldier. It's the little wiry guy that can
load up a 70 pound ruck and move 15 miles a day (average
marching speed of pre-mechanized armies) and fight a battle at the end
of the day. Sod that Rambo Shit.
> of course, this is already true in many/most branches of the infantry,
Engineers are NOT rpt NOT a branch of the Infantry. Seperate--we're
the ones that PASSED the ASVAB.
> ---- los wrote:
absolutely; social attitudes at large are changing, and i am sure this will
filter through to the armed forces, just as it has done (to a certain extent)
in the legal profession, politics, the poilce etc.
> > thus, it is no longer the archetypal/stereotypical big, heavily
> This statement Quoted above alludes to the sad trap that what we see
i know, i was only joshing, as a following paragraph showed. still you
are right - there is a popular hollywoid image of the soldier in the
minds of the public which is incorrect. still, your dissertation is
constructive and interesting.
> ---- the redoubtable john atkins wrote:
> Step 1, NO army can afford power armor for all it's troops.
bzzzt! wrong! if my background says that armies can afford power armour all
round, then, in my background, they can. i accept that in most
backgrunds - gzg offical included - power armour is restricted to a
fraction of the infantry. in starship troopers, it seemed to me that the whole
infantry was powered, except for specialists such as the sensitives who did
not need power armour. in sp*** ma**** etc, the whole of the marines was
armoured, even if the guard (and all other races) were not.
i think that it will always be true, from this point on in history, that the
limiting factor in raising armies will be people, most of whom would rather
sit at home at watch the war on bbc news 24 or cnn than go and fight in it. on
the contrary, with fully automated robotic assembly
plants, nanotech lathes, grow-to-order biomaterial components, etc,
building power armour will become trivial.
i expect that when armoured, mororised transport for infantry was introduced,
there were people who said it would never be universal. now,
every infantry formation has apcs/ifvs, or have more specialised travel
arrangements, such as helos or parachutes. in fact, i am sure the same was
said of the gun. i know the same was said of the machine gun.
> I know in
> about 40 or 50 with no power armor at all. In the 'official'
true. and in these cases, my comments on powered women soldiers are less
relevant (in the regular infantry, the situation would be as now, modulo
social changes; in the powered infantry, women might be on a more equal
footing).
> Pet Peeve: Eyesight has not been that big a deal since they invented
ok, sorry about all that. i already stand corrected on that one.
incidentally, what does 20/400 and 2/200 mean? we don't use that scheme
of measurement in the uk. we have diopters. i don't know how many diopters my
specs are. anyway, point taken. i do remember that in Full Metal Jacket (going
once more to fictional sources...) half the characters had specs.
> >of course, this is already true in many/most branches of the
please accept my most profound apologies! of course engineers are not
infantry, how stupid of me.
> You wrote:
I don't know what the malfunction with your mail software is, but please teach
it to format your mail properly. For instance
> bzzzt! wrong! if my background says that armies can afford power
Appeared as one line a couple hundred characters long. Please fix.
Anyway, I conceede this point--but also note that in Starship Troopers
the Mobile Infantry was a very small army relative to it's population. In the
final assault on Klendathu, the first echelon was only three divisions, and
the dispersion over the territory covered is so large that I believe it is
highly probable that the MI totaled maybe 6 divisions, and certaintly did not
come close to double that. And also
that the MI _did_ require a high standard of physical fitness and
stamina--remember their basic training had a more than 80% failure
rate, a failure rate more in keeping with Ranger School in the US than with
basic or infantry school anywhere in the world.
> i expect that when armoured, mororised transport for infantry was
Everyone wanted to make it universal, but the US was the only nation whcih
could afford to motorize their entire army for WWII.
> now, every infantry formation has apcs/ifvs, or have more specialised
Beg to differ. In US, 10th Mountain, 29th Light Infantry, and numerous
seperate brigades are light but not airborne or air assault. The Germans have
their mountain units, the Brits have... Actually, I don't know whether the
Brits have light infantry formations outside of the Paras and Royal Marines. I
do know that they dismounted some normally mech units and sent them to the
Falklands as foot troops
because they don't/didn't have the sea lift capability to send them nor
the logistical infrastructure to sustain them. But at any rate, that's just
major powers. Smaller nations generally have a lot of
truck-mounted infantry and straight leg divisions because they can't
afford even trucks. I'd also note that so-called parachute/airborne
units tend to do as much or more movement conventionally than by air
assault--the Paras walked to Goose Green, and the 82nd made a
truck-mounted assault into Iraq.
> Pet Peeve: Eyesight has not been that big a deal since they
incidentally, what does 20/400 and 2/200 mean? we don't use that scheme
That means that what a 'normal' eye sees at 200 (or 400) feet, I see at
20. IOW, I'm pulling in 1/10th of the level of detail a non-visually
impaired chap is-and that's my good eye. This level of eyesight was
such that it required a medical waiver to join the Army.:)
> ---- john atkins wrote:
not a lot i can do about this, actually - it's altavista.net, a
web-email gateway, which doesn't word-wrap. but i'm sure they'd be
willing to let me tinker with their server ... :-) of course, i could
just say that it's a paragraph, and paragraphs are terminated by carriage
returns. thus i'm right and your email software should cope with it, but i
won't because we'd just get into a big argument about email that's of no value
to anyone. if it troubles you, which it does, i will ponder on this problem.
> Anyway, I conceede this point--but also note that in Starship Troopers
> the Mobile Infantry was a very small army relative to it's population.
exactly! power armour is a force multiplier, of most use when the armed forces
are small relative to the population, as in most advanced states, which have
better things to spend their tax guilders on.
> And also
> with basic or infantry school anywhere in the world.
true, but i suspect that this was more for plot reasons than technology.
> Everyone wanted to make it universal
i'll bet money that there were senior generals in the british army who opposed
it. that's just the way it is with senior generals in the
british army :-). anyway, wasn't motorised armoured infantry transport
pioneered in ww1?
> >now, every infantry formation has apcs/ifvs, or have more specialised
> >travel arrangements, such as helos or parachutes. in fact, i am sure
> the Paras and Royal Marines.
well, the reason these lads are on foot is because they go where motor
transport cannot; i would include foot under 'more specialised travel
arrangements'. anyway, you are quite right and i was not sufficiently precise.
> I do know that they dismounted some
now that's a bloody good point; i can envisage planners looking at some
hundred-man rebel army on New Boxtead (unimportant backwater world) and
thinking 'do we really need to send power armour? nah.'.
> But at any rate, that's
also true.
> I'd also note that so-called parachute/airborne
i suppose thatr once you've dropped into the theatre, it's not terribly easy
to get back on the plane...
> the Paras walked to Goose Green,
NO THEY DID NOT! they *yomped*! there's a difference :-).
> That means that what a 'normal' eye sees at 200 (or 400) feet, I see
a brief experiment in looking at text on the monito suggests i have
20/40 vision., based on the assumption that i have normal vision with my
specs on. which i don't, so it's probably more like 20/100. heavy, man.
If there were any carriage returns there, I didn't see them either. I scrolled
so far over I felt like I was taking the train to a different country.
I guess that it must be my uncommon (Netscape 4) e-mail reader which is
at fault...
> tom.anderson@altavista.net wrote:
> > And also
How do you figure? Guys in power armor still have to walk and run everywhere.
Power Armor doesn't make it any easier to run five miles. It just makes it
easier to run five miles carrying a one ton armored suit. If you think you're
going to pull some slug off the street and watch him do miracles in PA, that's
just not gonna happen in anyone's universe, except maybe GW. (maybe not even
theirs) The use of power armor, at least as described in any SF I've ever
read, still required a VERY high degree of fitness and is usually a
"specialist" trade.
> > I do know that they dismounted some
and thinking 'do we really need to send power armour? nah.'.
> [quoted text omitted]
Again, if you are looking at managing your military resources, and PA is not
what your whole army is made out of, OR, you don't feel you have the extra
logistical capabilities required to keep PA troops in the field, then I think
that is a very real startegic decision.
I think PA will become the norm rather than the luxery of the
future(DS/FT
Future). There will be war on earth, assuming there always has been and always
will be so my argument isn't including good old Terra. Here is my argument:
1. I imagine most skirmishes will be small (Brigade or smaller) in the future.
2. Transport will be at a premium. Why transport APCs/Tanks/GEV
infantry when most conflicts involve securing the high ground (orbit) and
picking your battles. And if you decide to bring the APCs etc. you have to
have something big enough to transport them dirtside.
3. PA will be airtight making it great for harsh/vacc environments,
boarding actions, etc. As well, they won't need an airtight dropship.
Don't get me wrong, I love tanks and big armored formations. I just can't see
DS era conflicts having much of them. Why transport all these units to wipe
out a colony when you can sit there pounding it from orbit. Why transport all
these units to garrison a colony when all a fleet has to do is sit in orbit
destroying you at his leisure. I'm loosely basing my ideas on the island
hopping campaigns of the pacific.
Comments?
> -----Original Message-----
It
> just makes it easier to run five miles carrying a one ton armored
and
> thinking 'do we really need to send power armour? nah.'.
> You wrote:
> ---- john atkins wrote:
:) You're pegging all the pet peeves. No, he didn't. John AtkinsON wrote these
glorious phrases. I've never taken offense, but I always correct.
> i'll bet money that there were senior generals in the british army who
In a few theaters where there was room for it. There wasn't much call for such
on the Western Front. Who needs to get trucked the 500 yards your average
offensive takes you?
> I'd also note that so-called parachute/airborne
The 82nd fought the entire Vietnam War as a conventional unit, the Israeli
Paras have yet to make a combat drop (they even have APCs in their TO&E), the
British havn't made one since WWII (I don't think), the Soviets havn't either,
nor have the Poles (of course, they havn't gone to war since WWII, so...), and
the 82nd was essentially motorized for Desert Storm.
> the Paras walked to Goose Green,
This 'yomp' being a little livlier than a 'meander', I presume?
> You wrote:
> 1. I imagine most skirmishes will be small (Brigade or smaller) in the
Good luck holding a planet with a million or two inhabitants with a brigade.
> 2. Transport will be at a premium. Why transport APCs/Tanks/GEV
and picking >your battles. And if you decide to bring the APCs etc. you have
to have >something big enough to transport them dirtside.
Who told you PA doesn't need transport? I've found that it's gotta have IFVs
to keep up with the tanks et al. And your operational and strategic mobility
is gonna suck rocks, which means your small force (see your point 1) is going
to be incapable of dealing with a sparsely settled planet. Remember, a lot of
colonies are going to have the population of, say, Long Island, spread out
over the land area of, say, Russia.
You're probably going to have smaller concentrations of people around the
economically important sites - we're gregarious, and don't like to be
far away from our work & friends. But multiple sites could be spread all over
the planet, given a couple of decent runways (easy to make), fuel sources
(water for H & O) and a few reliable aerospaceplanes or shuttles (we've got to
have those, or how would people & stuff get to all those ships in orbit?).
When you have that situation, & you want to hold all of the sites, a cheap
high mobility force seems necessary: Line infantry in Grav APCs. Granted, I'm
thinking really reliable 'Traveller' Grav here, where crossing the Pacific is
an exercise in boredom, not something really finicky. Heck, it might have very
few moving parts, and a bunch of
black-box-type spares stowed in the back.
Maybe I have a more cynical view of future war, but I'm not convinced that the
various politicians will send enough troops to do every job. That's
where the fun starts. OK, we've got a reinforced brigade, and HOW many
different mining sites to watch?
Read Robert Frezza's 'A Small Colonial War' for a good example of a colonial
operation. Given the small amount of people and materiel involved, this would
be more appropriate for a GZG far colony than a
near-Core colony, but it's still pretty applicable.
Noah
[quoted original message omitted]
> tom.anderson@altavista.net wrote:
incidentally, what does 20/400 and 2/200 mean? we don't use that scheme
of measurement in the uk. we have diopters. i don't know how many diopters my
specs are. anyway, point taken. i do remember that in Full Metal Jacket (going
once more to fictional sources...) half the characters had specs.
> [quoted text omitted]
20/x for vision means that an object 20 feet from you looks as
clear/sharp/focused as it would for a person w/ normal eyesight at 'x'
feet.
A million or 2 inhabitants. Read my post again. I win the space battle, I sit
in orbit, unless you have a relief fleet en route, I grab rocks or drop nukes
at my leisure. You could have the best armored divs in the universe why do I
have to fight them when I don't?
Your second point, don't need transport. If I go with your example they can
just hitch a ride on the tank. I think you are missing the point though. Why
do I bother bringing tanks and armored units down when I don't?
I disagree with the colonies being sparse (this is a whole different argument)
I imagine them being relatively dense clustered around a star port with farms.
Again, don't get me wrong, it wouldn't be much fun playing a game where PA
engage remnants of New California's 2nd Light Lancers with ortillerty up the
ying yang. I prefer to game with what GZGs try to encompass.
> -----Original Message-----
> and picking >your battles. And if you decide to bring the APCs etc.
> settled planet. Remember, a lot of colonies are going to have the
What if the objective is to take the starport for use a a forward supply base?
The commanders aren't going to be to happy to have to use a couple of thousand
acres of radioactive glass or a 2 mile crater as a supply depot.
Slash a burn is only a viable tactic if you can afford to lose the economic
resources that you are destroying. Rarely is it cheaper to destroy and rebuild
than to capture and modify.
Case in point, why didn't we just lob a tactical nuke a Saddam? We couldn't
afford the political, economical, environmental or moral repercussions from
such an action. Just because you have the big guns, doesn't always mean you
get to use them, because of considerations other than military ones.
--Binhan
> Los wrote:
> John Skelly wrote:
There
> could be any number of political or other reason for not nuking from
I can't and won't argue about colony development. Didn't we kill that
thread a couple of months ago :-)?
Utopian vision? Grunts having to go in? When did I not say that wasn't going
to happen? I was saying that the Grunts would be power armored. I always
believe Grunts will be needed, heck I was once a Grunt. My argument was why
establish a DZ, why build up supplies just to mount a conventional assault? I
freely admit my future vision doesn't include every scenario political or
militarily.
I wasn't thinking of the Empire Strikes Back but more of the Gulf War. Yes
there was a convential ground war but look how much resistance there was
after the airwar (oh no, now I've done it - let the flames begin).
> -----Original Message-----
There
> could be any number of political or other reason for not nuking from
Good point. If you thought your starport thing through you may come to this
conclusion: Starport is FIBUA (street fighting) what better way to clear out a
starport than with infantry armed with PA? The other alternative would be to
set up a DZ collect your forces and mount an assault (great scenario) but why?
To give them time to collect a defense? To fight through to the star port just
to find hand to hand when you get there? Please read my response to jatkins in
terms of my future vu=ision isn't the be all and end all.
Have to add this: that radioactive glass would make one fine landing strip
;-)
> -----Original Message-----
There
> > could be any number of political or other reason for not nuking from
> John Atkinson wrote:
> The 82nd fought the entire Vietnam War as a conventional unit, the
They only ha done brigade in Vietnam and just for theyear after TET. But the
101st was their the whole time.
> Israeli Paras have yet to make a combat drop (they even have APCs in
Both the Brits and the Israelis jumped into the Suez in 1956 or thereabouts.
> This 'yomp' being a little livlier than a 'meander', I presume?
Cripes but those were some hellatious (sp?) yomps that the Brits undertook
during Corporate! Nobody humps or Yomps anymore like the Brits or the
Americans. They've raised it to an art form.
> John Skelly wrote:
> I wasn't thinking of the Empire Strikes Back but more of the Gulf War.
Yes
> there was a convential ground war but look how much resistance there
Well I suppose that scenario would work assuming every planet you attack is a
baren rock with nowhere to hide and clear weather. Hopefully there won't be
any planets like Korea kicking around.
> John Skelly wrote:
> A million or 2 inhabitants. Read my post again. I win the space
Ahh the utopian vision of future confllict.It cracks me up how everyone
assumes owning Space will just cause whatever resistance to knuckle under. I
suppose every government is going to sanction the indescriminate use of
nuclear weapons or mas drivers in every occasion. What are you, playing the
Imperial Forces in a Star Wars Scenario? There could be any number of
political or other reason for not nuking from orbit. Overwhelming air and
Naval Superiuority very rarely means jack shit to the grunt on the ground that
has to go in and winkle the bastard out. Especially after the first minute of
stepping off watever transport and finding a mass of fire coming at you. Sure
it can help a bit if applied intelligently, but ususally you still have to get
in there. Especially when the president is on the Theater Commanders back to
DO something. Seems to me the vast majority of military operations throughout
history have had some form of political influence of pressure on them forcing
the commander to do stuff he either doesn't want to do, or doesn't make sense.
> I disagree with the colonies being sparse (this is a whole different
I agree that the initial develpment fo a colony world looks like this, but
what aboutone that's been arount ten or twenty or fifty years?
Most scenarios I envision are colonies sprawling from a starport situated near
a natural resource. I don't imagine a developed country like North Korea with
thousands of years of history and years of industrialization being lifted up
from earth and transplanted. When I think of new colonies I think of early
America with the majority of abled body men working the land. I know this
won't be the case for everyone (ie like New Anglia) but imagine it will be the
norm era. If you don't like it or disagree fine.
> -----Original Message-----
That was not my point. The Korean Peninsula's terrain and weather combine to
make the type of air/space fire support you claimed (by drawing an
anology to Desert Storm) of limited utility at best.
Los
> John Skelly wrote:
> Most scenarios I envision are colonies sprawling from a starport
[quoted original message omitted]
> <RANT ON>
It's all about signal to noise ratio Los my boy.
TTFN
Jon
> Glover, Owen wrote:
> If you two have different visions of the future then you will argue
<RANT ON> For chrissakes! Notying is more annoying then messages like this.
Not that I'm interested in teh economic ramifications of colonization and
their potential relevance to GZG operations, but if I see a thread that
doesn't intersted mte, I SKIP OVER IT. I don't sit there and try to quash the
goddamn conversation. You're right, it is science fiction, and half the
enjoyment a large amount of the people get off of being on this mailing list
is postulating such things as "what if", "but I think"... and "in the future
there will probably be".... If you can't see the
relevance to sci -fi gaming then you're beyond help. Live and let live.
A lot of good ideas, additional rules, rules clarifications, scenarios etc.
comes from this free flow of discussion. Besides, it clearly says on the
thread OT!
<RANT OFF>
[oops! sent this to los by mistake. here it is for all
the rest of the list. if los has a stunningly
well-prepared comeback, now you know why :-). sorry
los.]
> ---- you wrote:
> You wrote:
> ps right, in my browser, what los wrote appears as one