[SG2] weapons

As a followup to the 'AGL vs SAW' thread and some redesign of the Islamic
Federation army, I'm curious how Those More Expert Than I would rate, in SG
terms:
--"heavy" 30mm AGL
--recoiless antitank 90mm gun

> Laserlight wrote:

> As a followup to the 'AGL vs SAW' thread and some redesign of the

LVC/1 with an indirect-fire option.

> --recoiless antitank 90mm gun

LVC/2 or /3

Unfortunately SG2 doesn't have an LVC (Low Velocity Cannon) weapon class
:-/

Hi, while everyone is still thinking about GL's; in SG2 all of the basic
weapons listed have their FP increased by 1 due to the simple addition of a
GL.

My question is this: Does a rifle mounted GL have the same effective range as
the bullets coming out of it?

From my small understanding of the weapon systems it would seem that you would
only get the the increased FP from the GL in the first or second range band.
Beyond that you would only have the basic FP of the rifle without the increase
from the GL. I would
think that the rifle-mounted GL would also be useful
in the first round of an Assault as well, or is that just complicating
matters?

More knowledgeable people than me fell free to chime in. Thanks.

Eric

--- "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:
> As a followup to the 'AGL vs SAW' thread and some

> At 1:34 PM -0800 11/17/03, Eric Brown wrote:

For the current generation of 40mm grenade launchers sure, they're shorter
ranged. However, the OICW 20mm grenades are very long ranged and have higher
velocity so they certainly reach.

> [quoted text omitted]

> Unfortunately SG2 doesn't have an LVC (Low Velocity Cannon) weapon

Wise guy. Okay, something like Range Bands = 10" x Size, and a heavy negative
modifier to Impact Die if the target has Reactive armor?

--- "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:
> As a followup to the 'AGL vs SAW' thread and some

The same way you'd rate a.50 cal for range and possibly a bit more firepower
but with less impact.

> --recoiless antitank 90mm gun

Useless. Personally, IMHO the RRs would be replaced
by DFFGs--they seem to fill the same role.  They are
light-weight, short-ranged, and have a respectable
punch for weapons of their size.

Yeah, but they're great for plinking!

> on 03.11.18 10:19 AM, John Atkinson at johnmatkinson@yahoo.com wrote:

> --- John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Useless.

I can't speak to SG, since I don't play, but in DS terms, I'd heartily agree.
Aside from all other arguements against LVC's, Given the PSB regarding just
how advanced PDS and ZADS will be in the game setting, I'd suspect they'd be
more than capable of shooting down a LVC projectile without blinking....

Personally, IMHO the RRs would be replaced
> by DFFGs--they seem to fill the same role. They are

Hmm.... never thought of them as LVC replacements, but it makes sense.

I decided to do that for my OU PA figures; attached a quad-barrel
minigun to the arm.
It's so huge it had to be a support weapon, so I made them DFFG/1, FP:
d4, I: d12x2*, 4 rounds. Useless in a firefight, but devastating (especially
if a major hit is scored) against point targets.

Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies

> -----Original Message-----
IMPORTANT: Notice to be read with this E-mail
1. Before opening any attachments, please check them for
viruses and defects.  2. This e-mail (including any
attachments) may contain confidential information for the use of the intended
recipient. 3. If you are not the intended recipient, please: contact the
sender by return
e-mail, to notify the misdirection; do not copy, print,
re-transmit, store or act in reliance on this e-mail; and
delete and destroy all copies of this e-mail.  4. Any views
expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are not
a statement of Australian Government policy unless otherwise stated. 5.
Finally, please do not remove this notice, so that any other readers are aware
of these restrictions.

--- "Robertson, Brendan"
> <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:

*Blank Stare*

If I played SG, that would probably be exactly what I would do.... or not....

> At 5:19 PM -0800 11/17/03, John Atkinson wrote:

I doubt that a Bradly crew on the receiving end of a 90mm RR shot would say,
useless. I'm sure the Marines at Hue City didn't think that of their Ontos'
and their 6 105mm RRs.

> --- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:

Well, considering that the question was asked in the context of Stargrunt, the
answer stands.

--- Edward Lipsett <translation@intercomltd.com>
wrote:
> Yeah, but they're great for plinking!

The first thing I thought when I read this statement was of a guy with a 90mm
RR on the back of his truck sighting in on a squirrel.

> > I doubt that a Bradly crew on the receiving end

No it doesn't. You're making a zillion assumptions, such as the lack increase
in the effectiveness of the warhead, that civil engineering structures will be
built like super tanks, etc. By the way, did you know that a 105mm RR
(Recoiless Rifle) firing a HEAT warhead can penetrate the side of an M1 and
M1A tank? I don't know about the M1A1 and M1A2. Note that it can penetrate an
M60 tank head on. I hate to think of what it could do to a Bradely even with
reactive armor...

The best way to view a RR in DSII would be the warhead of a GSM/L stuck
on a range 18" cannon, with the firecontrol being one worse against moving
targets. Note that defense systems would not be capable of intercepting the
round. You can extract SG rules from this.

By the way, the Brit's fielded a 120mm RR called the Wombat.

> At 2:48 AM -0800 11/18/03, John Atkinson wrote:

Low tech weapons. Short range, light, easy to make (relatively). Should work
on vehicles
vulnerable to GMS/Ls with lest Tech requirement.

> Note that defense systems would not be capable of intercepting the

I have to agree with Imre on this--granted PDS are nifty, but if
everyone had them and they shot down all incoming, then there'd be no indirect
fire artillery. Since there is, we can assume that either PDS doesn't have a
100% kill rate, or not everyone has PDS, or both.

I like DFFG and if it were the high-tech, high-dollar Alarishi Imperial
Marines, I'd go along with it. However...the force I'm actually designing
is the Islamic Federation's spetsnaz-equivalent commandos, and I don't
see them as having DFFG.

> At 2:51 AM -0800 11/18/03, John Atkinson wrote:

Nahh. That's what barret 50's are for. That and.55 Boyes rifles. Years ago,
someone asked if you could use a Barret 50 for prairie dog shooting. The
Humerous comments that followed were quite funny.

*BOOM**Poof* No squirrel to clean up. Just a red mist for the plants.

Of course there was also the great thread on shooting elk from a canyon
over....great until you have to hike down the canyon, hike up the other
canyon, find the dead elk, field dress it, then drag it back down and up the
canyons. Far too much work. All while carrying a 40 pound rifle.

--- "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:

> Marines, I'd go along with it. However...the force

Actually, that's about the only people in the IFed who
I do see as carting around tripod-mounted DFFGs.

After all, if their elite troops are equipped that much inferior to everyone
else's line then how did they survive that long?

> --- "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@sprintmail.com> wrote:

> No it doesn't. You're making a zillion assumptions,

Yeah. I'm looking at it as an HVC without muzzle velocity. Sure, you can knock
down buildings or nail trucks with it, but it's not going to be terribly
effective against anything much heavier.

> that a 105mm RR (Recoiless Rifle) firing a HEAT

Source?  I'm also assuming that MBTs in SG/DS are
superior to modern ones--I mean, to go from the first
tanks to the M1 took a mere 65 years (more or less). What will they be like in
another 180?

> The best way to view a RR in DSII would be the

Yeah!  d4 FiCon!  I'll take two-to-one odds in your
favor and do a frontal charge. With APCs. These things are manually aimed,
remember?

> By the way, the Brit's fielded a 120mm RR called the

I may be wrong, but wouldn't the weight on that sort of thing defeat the
primary purpose, which is to be
light-weight and man-portable?  At any rate, any army
which isn't a joke dropped RRs larger than the Carl Gustav in favor of ATGMs
years ago. And the CG is
more of a reloadable IAVR than a GMS/L.

> At 7:04 AM -0800 11/18/03, John Atkinson wrote:

They don't. They just keep recruiting more.

> On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 07:04:23AM -0800, John Atkinson wrote:

> Actually, that's about the only people in the IFed who

The parade troops will of course have _extra-shiny_ DFFGs, but which
can't be fired because that would disturb the colony of spiders in the power
pack.

> --- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:

Though I can't speak for John, I do believe the comment was withing the
context of the future, not the past or even present.

> --- John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:

Don't post stuff like that where I can read it while drinking my morning
coffee..... damn near ruined a good shirt.

> --- Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:

I think he meant how does the IFED survive, not how do their troops....
YMMV.....

JohnA:
> Actually, that's about the only people in the IFed who

RBW:
> The parade troops will of course have _extra-shiny_ DFFGs, but which

<grin> The Cal part of Cal-Tex might be that environmentally sensitive,
but the IFed might be a little different.

Okay, DFFG/1 it is, for the commandos--everyone else will have to make
do with heavy IAVRs.

> They don't. They just keep recruiting more.

> I think he meant how does the IFED survive, not how do

Well, the fedayeen are explicitly not all that worried about surviving, but in
any event, their philosophy is: "We don't need The strength of thirty When we
can win By fighting dirty! Two, four, six, eight, Tiptoe sneak and
infiltrate!"

(bonus points for the source)

> At 7:54 AM -0800 11/18/03, Brian B wrote:

A PIAT could screw up a Modern IFV quite handily in spite of it's aged design.
I'm sure there will be some interesting, large caliber, but low velicity RR's
in the future for armies that don't have lots of tech. You don't need
sacrificial Guidance with a RR like you do
with a GMS/L or H.

> On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 11:18:35AM -0500, laserlight@quixnet.net wrote:

> (bonus points for the source)

Earliest reference I've _seen_ is Farahslax's Green Toupees, in _Bored
of the Rings_. But I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's older than
that., We are stealthy Green Toupees Skulking nights and snoozing days, A team
of silent, nasty men, Who all think Sorhed's numbah ten. Draw their fire Flank
on right Narcs retire
Fight-team-fight!
Using every grungy trick
> From booby trap to pungee stick
Two-four-six-eight
Tiptoe, sneak And infiltrate
Cha-cha-cha.

> (bonus points for the source)

> Earliest reference I've _seen_ is Farahslax's Green Toupees, in _Bored

Shouldn't think so, the tune is from the John Wayne 1968 movie "The Green
Berets"

> At 11:18 AM -0500 11/18/03, laserlight@quixnet.net wrote:

And Do Gurka's like to munch these guys for lunch?

I'll have to ask Chitra Thapa what his impression of Islamic troops are.

"Bored of the Rings" (Rangers of Twodor)

Michael Brown

[quoted original message omitted]

> And do Gurkha's like to munch these guys for lunch?

Ask him in 180 years, after they've had time to get properly trained. The fact
that the [fill in the ethnic group of your choice] were terrible troops at one
time doesn't mean that they weren't also the best at another time. Consider
how many ups and downs the US Army has been through since 1938.

> --- Roger Burton West <roger@firedrake.org> wrote:

I once knew a FISTer who had a owl living in his FISTV head. Very funny. They
eventually got it out unharmed.

> --- Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:

> A PIAT could screw up a Modern IFV quite handily in

Granted. But just because it COULD doeesn't mean it would be useful in that
role except uder specific circumstances. That renders it functionally useless.

However, even if we do grant the PIAT some usefulness today, I'm still waiting
to hear compelling evidence for the logic extrapolation from the above
statement to the effectiveness of low velocity weapons in the future.

I'm sure there will be some
> interesting, large caliber,

And I'm just as sure that J.A. was correct in his assertion that they'll be
useless, at least for the most part and most certainly against what will at
that time cutting edge technology, and probably even against that era's
standard tech. I can see it's
usefulness only in Low-on-Low conflicts.

You don't need sacrificial Guidance with a
> RR like you do

Again, I'm convinced that at that point, PDS will be more than capable of
engaging any projectile moving at low velocity on a ballistic trajectory.
Maybe SG
and/or DS doesn't reflect that, but they should.  Of
course, if anyone can explain why this assertion is incorrect (I'd be
especially interested to hear OO's opinion on this point, for obvious
reasons), I'm alweays willing to rethink my position.

> At 10:21 AM -0800 11/18/03, John Atkinson wrote:

How harmed did they get in trying to persuade the bird to live somewhere else?

Frankly, I'd probably take that as a vehicle mascot if at all possible. Big
Eyes, sensitive and able to cause death (if not so silent death) from above.

> Imre Szabo wrote:

> By the way, did you know that a 105mm RR (Recoiless Rifle) firing a

Depends very much on the exact spot hit - the side armour of an M1xx
tank varies a *LOT* from spot to spot. The "mystery RPG" that rendered an M1A1
combat ineffective in Iraq a couple weeks ago managed to hit a very weak

spot indeed - so weak in fact that even an old RPG-7V round probably (73
mm caliber, nominal penetration ~350mm RHA) would've gotten through in that

place :-/

John, didn't you hear about that incident before you left Iraq?

> Note that defense systems would not be capable of intercepting the

Um, Imre? *Today's* in-service PDS systems are capable of intercepting
most RR rounds, with the possible exception of large RRs firing at very short

ranges.

If you know a sure-fire way of preventing PDSs from intercepting RR
rounds,
I'd be *very* interested in hearing about it - the long-term future of
my
job quite literally depends on it :-/

As for Laserlight's comment about PDSs preventing indirect artillery fire:
*P*DS only destroys incoming rounds within about 20 meters from the
vehicle, so isn't very good at dealing with stand-off target-seeking
artillery rounds like BONUS or SADARM which fire from 200 meters away or

more; and unless it has an extremely high rate of fire it is vulnerable to
being over-saturated by large numbers of submunitions.

However, *A*DS systems capable of destroying submunition carrier rounds
before they deploy their cargo are currently under development :-/

Regards,

> Laserlight wrote:

> >Unfortunately SG2 doesn't have an LVC (Low Velocity Cannon) weapon

Something like that, yes. Don't remember if PDS exists in SG; if so it too
should be very good at stopping LVC rounds.

Later,

> At 10:47 PM +0100 11/18/03, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

Reality is starting to sound more like Hammer's Slammers with out the power
guns.

> --- "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@sprintmail.com> wrote:

> Actually, you could have modern fire control on a

The disadvantage is that in a futuristic setting,
PDS/ADS is definitely going to degrade the usefulness
of such a weapon, unless you're talking about a
Low-on-Low conflict.

> --- Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:

> Reality is starting to sound more like Hammer's

Disturbing, huh?

> >Well, considering that the question was asked in the

Actually, you could have modern fire control on a RR. The advantage over a
comporable diameter missile is that you're not shooting $10,000's of guidence
system down range with every shot.

Another advantage is that most RR's have HEAT, HE, and Smoke rounds. This
means you have a much better versitility then with a missile system. The much
lower cost per round makes it affordable.

> At 3:28 PM -0800 11/18/03, Brian B wrote:

Not really, more interesting. I just want to know when I can get my armored
hover car. I figure I can squeeze a fusion bottle in the back of the Ferret
and if I pull all those wheel stations off, I can put in the blowers. If I've
pulled the drive line out, then I have under armor locations for the power
cables...hmm...

> --- Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:

> Not really, more interesting. I just want to know

Certainly would make the daily commute more interesting.....

> Yeah. I'm looking at it as an HVC without muzzle

It won't be any worse then a similar diameter GSM.

> > that a 105mm RR (Recoiless Rifle) firing a HEAT

Source: A great old game from Avalon Hill called FirePower... Isn't that
rather inconsistent to assume that tanks are going to improve over the next
180 years, but that HEAT warheads won't??? If they don't, then IVAR's and
possibly GSM's will be useless...

> Yeah! d4 FiCon! I'll take two-to-one odds in your

Gee, John, that's going to get rather bloody for you when one half of the RR's
open up on your side in an ambush after the other half entices you into going
someplace you shouldn't... If you are being invaded stand up fights just beg
for orbital bombardment by the attacker...

> > By the way, the Brit's fielded a 120mm RR called the

I simply listed it as an example of the largest RR that was in service that I
know of. It was mounted on landrover or similar light utility truck. And how
man portable is a TOW? Don't bother answering this one because I have a friend
in the Marine Corps who is on a TOW team...

All RR's are more similar to a highly accurate reloadable IVAR then a
GMS/L...

Does anyone know if that crazy Japanesse tankette mounting a pair of 105mm
RR's is still inservice in Japan?

> --- "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@sprintmail.com> wrote:

(I'm assuming you meant GMS)

How do you figure that? The GMS can follow terrain and juke to help minimize
ADS effectiveness, and has active guidance to adjust for target course &
speed. The RR fires directly and follows a ballistic trajectory right at the
target, which makes it easier to dodge or shoot down.

> Source: A great old game from Avalon Hill called

Which carries the same weight as the real life expertise of someone like OO,
who mentioned the luck of the shot that killed the M1 in Iraq. I'd call that a
Boom! chit if it had happened in DS.

Isn't that
> rather inconsistent to assume that tanks are going

John didn't actually say that, you're putting words in his mouth there. I'm
hesitant to do the same thing, but what I THINK John was assuming, and what
*I* would certainly argue, is that while both Tanks and HEAT rounds will
improve, that the potential level of improvement of the HEAT round, a specific
weapon, is much more limited than the improvement potential of an
entire combat system like a Tank (HEAT:   Velocity,
warhead power, and firecon are the three aspects that can be improved. IF you
increase the velocity, it's not longer a LOW velocity weapon, and would be
treated as something esle under the game rules, now wouldn't it? You can
increase the Firecon, but if it's direct
fire and low velocity, ADS/PDs is still going to be
it's demise. If you make it capable of changing course in flight, it's now a
GMS. You can improve warhead power via improved explosive materials and
shapes, but again, the Low Velocity Vs. PDS issue remains. VS. Tank: Ignoring
all other improvements, just in survivability, the tank adds stealth, FireCon
jamming, PDS, coverage from ADS....

If they
> don't, then IVAR's and

IAVR's will probably be of limited use, and GMS will have it's place but not
be invincible.

> I simply listed it as an example of the largest RR

Just because it's in service doesn't make it the best tool for the job, or
even a good idea.....

> --- "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@sprintmail.com> wrote:

> The best anti-tank weapon is whatever you have when

If the Anti-tank weapon you have won't Anti- a tank
without a lot of luck and skill and bravery and enemy stupidity, it's barely
better than no ATW at all.

> They're cheap and easy to manufacture compared to

And again, if the Do you Make doesn't Do the Job, Don't bother doing it at
all.

> I disagree here. Look at Iraq. There is a high

Again, you've made a leap assuming that the difference in tech levels between
the weapons used by Iraq and the US today are the same as the difference
betwween a
HVC/RR and the cutting edge defenses available in the
future. I'd argue that the level of parity between the US and the Iraqui
guerillas today is, although widely disparate, far closer to equal than the
difference between a RR and a PDS- protected tank or
PA trooper of the future.

and while the high tech force can go
> anywhere they want, they

I would not argue with you there, but you're digressing wildly. The discussion
is about the tactical viability of a given weapon on a future battlefield, not
the strategic nature of that battlefield.

> Unless they sub-orbitally detonate a high yield

Ummm.... in which case you've rendered it a Low-on-Low
conflict, and I believe I was the one who mentioned them to begin with. But
you have not shown how, under
normal operaations, a RR/HVC can hope to defeat a PDS
on a more-than-occasional basis, or even more often
than anecdotally.

> > A PIAT could screw up a Modern IFV quite handily in

The best anti-tank weapon is whatever you have when you need it.  If
you're lucky it will be good enough to do the job without the enemy
cooperating too much... I bet there are a lot of Palastinians wishing they had
PIAT's...
I'm sure Allah would forgive them for the sin they would have to commit to
cock the PIAT... A joke based on several descriptions I've read about trying
to cock a PIAT while prone. Apparently it looks you're making love to the
PIAT...

> However, even if we do grant the PIAT some usefulness

They're cheap and easy to manufacture compared to missiles, if you can afford
better, you get better; if you can't, you make do...

> And I'm just as sure that J.A. was correct in his

I disagree here. Look at Iraq. There is a high tech force versus a low tech
force, and while the high tech force can go anywhere they want, they have yet
even come close to breaking the will of the enemy to resist. While the US
"controls" Iraq, the US has yet to make Iraq economically vaible, hence
guerrilla warfare could be very useful in war in the future. The idea here is
that conquered planets fight on to tie down enemy forces and prevent captured
resources from being useful to the enemy. The low tech weapons you dislike are
ideal for these purposes...

> Again, I'm convinced that at that point, PDS will be

Unless they sub-orbitally detonate a high yield designer nuke and bath
the entire hemisphere in EMP; then everybody will be low tech... More Thrust
had EMP missiles...

> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:

> John, didn't you hear about that incident before you

Nope. The only one I heard about was the M1A1 that rolled over a 300lb IED and
lost two crewmembers.

> However, *A*DS systems capable of destroying

The assumption being that you really gotta overload those things to be
effective.

> --- Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:

> How harmed did they get in trying to persuade the

They scared it out by moving the head around.

> Imre Szabo wrote:

> >>Well, considering that the question was asked in the

The *dis*advantage of putting modern fire controls on RRs is that while it
enables you to hit stationary targets at long ranges the missile is still
much better at hitting moving ones :-/

> Another advantage is that most RR's have HEAT, HE, and Smoke rounds.

There are lots of guided missiles which come in HE (or thermobaric) etc.

versions as well :-/

Regards,

> At 5:18 PM -0800 11/18/03, John Atkinson wrote:

Some kind of light AT weapon punched a hole in an M1A1 that went through the
skirt, side armor (under the turret ring) through the inside, across the
fighting compartment (grazed the gunner's vest) and imbedded itself in the
left
side armor to a depth of about 2-3 inches.

Regarding PD/AD fire against shells in ballistic arcs, in the 1970's
when the Royal Navy was testing Sea Wolf PD missile system, they managed to
intercept a 4.5" shell in flight with a sea wolf missile. Granted the test was
no doubt undertaken in ideal conditions, but it would seem to indicate
(to me anyway) that in the future vehicle mounted anti artilery/RR
systems would be more than possible and deployed into service.

Cheers,

From: "Matt Tope" <mptope@omnihybrid.com>

> Regarding PD/AD fire against shells in ballistic arcs, in the 1970's

Matt Tope schrieb:
> but it would seem to indicate (to me anyway) that in the future

Quite so. On the other hand, if we are talking PSB about future weaponry,
shells could be fitted with ECM chips, stealth coated, hardened or equipped
with "sand casters" or chaff dispensers to make it harder to intercept them.

Just a matter of adjustung the die rolls ;-)

Greetings Karl Heinz

> How do you figure that? The GMS can follow terrain and

Sea skimmers don't fly nearly as close to the surface as most people think.
Ground skimmers aren't going to fly that close to the ground either. Why? It
really stinks when your ground hugging missile plows through a bush or smacks
tree branch and goes carening out of control because of it...

> > Source: A great old game from Avalon Hill called

I have never heard anyone say that the front of the M1 wasn't relatively proof
against the L7 gun, however, no one has said this about the side of the M1.
Note that a 105mm RR has a slightly more effective HEAT warhead then the L7
gun (L7 gun is the most common 105mm tank gun mounted on M60's, M1's, Lepord
1's, etc...). Boom chits wreck and should have never been included. The
represent the one in a thousand hits (or more likely one in ten thousand), but
they happen much more often then one in a thousand. By the way, FirePower
lists an RPG7 as being capable of penetrating the M1 from the middle of the
side back.

> Isn't that

I did not put words into his mouth. He made an assumpition that's patently
false and I called him on it. Is there room for tanks to improve over the next
160 years? Yes. Is there room for HEAT warheads to improve over the next 160
years? Yes. Which will have the advantage? Anyone who claims to know is a B.S.
artist.

> If they

An RR is more then an IAVR and less then a GMS...

> > The best anti-tank weapon is whatever you have when

Dropping a PIAT bomb on top of an M1 turret beats trying to close assault an
M1... You don't have to isolate the M1 from other M1's and supporting infantry
to pull it off without getting butchered... Just one of infinately many
examples... Besides, most armored vehicles aren't as tough to kill as the
front of a tank. How many Bradley's are in the US Army? What is the ratio of
Fuchs and Marders to tanks in the German Army...

> > They're cheap and easy to manufacture compared to

Okay, you just volunteered for the close assault section against that
tank...

> > I disagree here. Look at Iraq. There is a high

If you use current tech RR against a future tech tank, you are right. If you
use a future tech RR against a future tech tank, you are wrong. Think directed
microwave radiation warhead that detnates just outside of PDS range. There
goes the electronics of the PDS if your lucky. If not, the fire control of the
tank is fried also... And maybe the electronics of the powerplant as well...

> and while the high tech force can go

The strategic nature of a conflict dictates which weapons will be most useful.
In other words what equipment you should produce and train your troops to use.
It is very relavent...

> > Unless they sub-orbitally detonate a high yield

See above comment on direct microwave radiation weapons.

Anyone have any comments on (and pics of) the 6mm / 1:300 lines from:
Reviresco Scotia CinC Other SF vehicles that I should be aware of?

> --- "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@sprintmail.com> wrote:

> Dropping a PIAT bomb on top of an M1 turret beats

Yes, you do.

> you use a future tech RR against a future tech tank,

As usual, you are arguing yourself in circles just to be argumentative. Your
big argument for Recoiless Rifles in the first place is that they are less
expensive than guided missles.

Now you want to put a disposable DEW warhead in the shell. Am I the only one
who thinks that is likely to considerably more expensive and require a higher
tech base (far higher) than a simple Imaging IR sensor?

Besides, if such technology were available in the DSII universe, we'd already
have seen it.

As it stands, the only relatively 'low velocity' weapons in DSII are artillery
shells fired in large numbers (think about the capacity limits of an artillery
vehicle, compare to modern artillery vehicles) and containing submunitions.
Everything
else is expressly hyper-velocity or fired only at
point-blank range (IAVR) or vulnerable to PDS (GMS).

***
Anyone have any comments on (and pics of) the 6mm / 1:300 lines from:
Reviresco Scotia CinC Other SF vehicles that I should be aware of?
***

Reviresco has plenty of piccies:
http://www.tin-soldier.com/doe/doe1.html
http://www.tin-soldier.com/doe/doecat.html

Likewise, CinC's site is has a number of images, but all I can find are the
Ren Leg at the moment. I may have been dreaming, but I thought they had
their own Sci-Fi. However, try this:
http://www.pfc-cinc.shoppingcartsplus.com/page/page/292434.htm

I tend to think of these in a spectrum, with Reviresco tending to lack detail,
and CinC just short of GHQ's work, and Scotia towards the center. Reviresco
and Scotia seem to be larger in my memory, but this is with never having any
on the same table at the same time.

Or did you find all this already?

Oh, yeah, I think there's a company in the UK, Ground Zero or something
with a line called Future Wars. Rather nice; this ole vacc-head has a
large
group... ;->=

The_Beast

> --- "Imre A. Szabo" wrote:

> -- JohnA wrote:

<grin> I hereby spray both contestants with halon, just as a precaution.

I'd say that if arty can beat PDS, then a direct fire weapon can also beat
PDS. Whether it does it by being sneaky, or having submunitions, or
whatever, is not a problem to me--my expertise is more like "he point
the boomstick, de tank go boom."

We might consider a RR to be a variant IAVR, say with a 2x12* warhead limited
to the 1st and 2nd range bands, or 3x12* limited to 1st RB only.

That gives the infantry an incentive to get up close and personal.

> --- "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@sprintmail.com> wrote:

> Sea skimmers don't fly nearly as close to the

So let me get this straight.... we're talking about a future in which RR
rounds will have ECM chips, sandcasters, etc., but GMS won't have an improved
ability to avoid terrain? Now who's tailoring the technological advances to
fit their argument?

> I have never heard anyone say that the front of the

Two things: 1. If you're going to use an incident as an example to support
your arguement, stick with the details of that incident. As OO mentioned, the
shot that killed the M1 in Iraq was a very rare hit in terms of where it hit.
2. Again, any use of modern weapons to support these arguements falls short
because it fails to account for changes in available technology.

> > Isn't that

> I did not put words into his mouth. He made an

You said above "Isn't that rather inconsistent to assume that tanks are going
to improve over the next 180 years, but that HEAT warheads won't???"

If you can show me a direct quote where John said, "HEAT warheads won't
improve over the next 180 years," or words to that effect, I will retract my
arguement and apologize. Otherwise, you DID put words in his mouth.

Is there room for
> tanks to improve over the

Noone claims to know, but we all have strong opinions, otherwise this wouldn't
be a thread. But we can definitely base our opinions on logic and the evidence
we CAN apply.

> An RR is more then an IAVR and less then a GMS...

In terms of game effects, a RR is an oversized IAVR, and probably damned easy
to defend against.

DougE said:

> Reviresco has plenty of piccies:

yeah, some of these are pretty grainy and I don't know whether it's the mini
surface or the pic that's at fault.

> Oh, yeah, I think there's a company in the UK, Ground Zero or something

Ground Zero...is that where you put a "0" in at the top, turn the crank, and
get lots of ".00" out?

Cutting through the arguments, doesn't that last piece sort of sum it up? And
if so, why not make the RRs variations of the IAVRs with differing ranges,
size classes, and damage to refect the "bigger gun", and let it suffer from
the same handicaps that the IAVRs do?

:)

John K. Lerchey Computer and Network Security Coordinator Computing Services
Carnegie Mellon University

> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Brian B wrote:

> --- "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@sprintmail.com> wrote:

> --- Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:

> Likewise, CinC's site is has a number of images, but
http://www.pfc-cinc.shoppingcartsplus.com/page/page/292434.htm

I emailed CinC yesterday, they sent me some "desktop" pics of the whole sci fi
line. I will send them to anyone who's interested, I own some fo the THK Mk
IV's, and they are excellent.

--- "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:

> I'd say that if arty can beat PDS, then a direct

But as OO has pointed out, not all arty can - and the
kinds that can are heftier than what you could probably deliver via RR.

Whether it does it by being sneaky, or having
> submunitions, or

Here's the problem -- you're starting to pile more and
more expensive technology into a system that's intended to be a cheap
alternative to an expensive but effective system, just to make the cheap
system
marginally effective.  Seems very Rube Goldberg-ish to me...

I'd say that the RR would work in the DS/SG game environment in the
view that the GZG-verse has high and low tech forces that sometimes
have to fight. Usually, it's low tech against low tech if you're doing low
tech at all.

It strikes me that you'd get scenarios where the low tech is completely out
classed and some of their weapons are useless.
Afterall, if they have GMS/l-Basics against a foe that has ADS-Sup,
PDS-Sup and ECM-Sup, they're just about trumped and have to get
sneaky. GMS is nice, but heavy. A RR could arguably have a GMS/H
warhead with out all the guidance packages and be short ranged. A great bunker
buster and AT weapon against equivalent low tech forces.

Did the Skinnys in Mogadishu have anything that could really bother a high
tech army with Heavy tanks and good doctrine? Not unless they
got close. Normally RPG-7s aren't even poor AA weapons, but with the
right environment, they do work. Normally the helos are too fast, too
maneuverable and it just isn't a factor.

> --- "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@sprintmail.com> wrote:
*SNIP*

I will defer to Mr.Atkinson's comments regarding the aerlier portion of this
post.

> > Ummm.... in which case you've rendered it a

I SAW your comments, you'll notice my comments were in REPLY to them. The
question I have is this: If the enemy has sophisticated EMP weaponry, why the
hell are
they sporting low-tech RR's?

You missed my point -- if you're just going to say
"EMP", wave your hand, and that's the end of all
arguements for High-tech, you're not really addressing
the issue of future RR/LVC Vs. PDs on their own
merits.

Furthermore, you've painted yourself into a corner. By presenting these
weapons as the equivalent of the PIAT in your example, you've put them forward
as the low tech, low cost alternative to higher velocity weapons and GMS's.
But as soon as obstacles to their
effectiveness are presented, eg PDS/ADS, the solution
to the problem has been to add high tech, high cost
features to the weapon, eg ECM chips, seeker/guidance
systems, sandcasters, or support the weapon with high tech combined arms
(popping an ECM). It's not really
a low tech/low cost alternative any more, then, is it?

> John Atkinson wrote:

> >John, didn't you hear about that incident before you left Iraq?

That one was in your division, wasn't it... the reports I saw called it an
M1A2, but against that much explosives it wouldn't have mattered at all.

The "mystery RPG" incident happened either the same day or a day before the
IED one; Ryan described most of the details. What he didn't say was that

the hit managed to wreck quite a lot of electronics including the turret

traverse controls, so the tank was rendered combat ineffective but could

move back to base under its own power - in SG/DS terms an "SD:T" hit
rather than a "BOOM".

 From the damage inflicted - the pics were available on the net for at
least a week - it is also clear that this wasn't the normal old RPG-7V
(far
too little break-up of the "whatever it was" <g> - aka HEAT jet - for
that), and that made the US tankers very nervous for a while since there

was "something unknown out there which could take out an Abrams". Because of
this "mystery" the incident caused more stir in the media than the IED one,
with some "experts" even suggesting that the Iraqis were using
electro-magnetic cannon (!) - the Israeli tank losses to IEDs earlier
this year have taught even Joe Public that massive amounts of explosives can
kill a tank no matter how well-armoured it is, so the newsies couldn't
make a mystery out of it.

Exactly what weapon did this I don't know, but you can take your pick of

any of a number of modern RPGs or LAWs.

> >However, *A*DS systems capable of destroying submunition carrier

Yep. It is intended to be able to stop an incoming Katyusha salvo though, so
you'll probably need a lot of emphasis on the "really" when they get it to
work.

Later,

> low tech, low cost alternative to higher velocity

It doesn't have to be "cheap", it just needs to be cost effective when you
factor in the kill ratio, cost of training, cost of countermeasures, etc.

And it's kind of hard to judge how expensive things will be in 20 years, much
less 180. Vaccheads will expend a FTL frigate without batting an
eye...

> Imre Szabo wrote:

> Sea skimmers don't fly nearly as close to the surface as most people

A few meters above the mean surface... the spray behind a low-flying sea

skimmer can be quite impressive.

> Ground skimmers aren't going to fly that close to the ground either.
Why?
> It really stinks when your ground hugging missile plows through a bush

We're already building missiles that can handle light brushes with bushs

and branches without getting knocked out of control... in the future we'll get
better still, as well as improving the missile's ability to *avoid* smacking
into obstacles.

> >>Source: A great old game from Avalon Hill called FirePower...

Um... yeah. Put it like this: while games can get much of their data
reasonably right, I wouldn't rely on them at all when it comes to evaluating
the latest equipment at the time of print (IIRC the M1 was quite new when
FirePower was published).

Regards,

--- "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:
> >low tech, low cost alternative to higher velocity

Point taken.

> Imre Szabo wrote:

> Dropping a PIAT bomb on top of an M1 turret beats trying to close

Only very marginally, thanks to the abysmally poor range of the PIAT. (In DS
game terms, of course, dropping a PIAT bomb onto an M1 turret *is* a
Close Assault; in SG you might be able to stand off one or two on-table
inches outside Close Assault range.)

> You don't have to isolate the M1 from other M1's and supporting

Yes, you do. The PIAT's range *sucks*.

Later,

> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:

> That one was in your division, wasn't it... the

Depends on what unit it was... There ain't many A2s in country. I thought it
was down in Samarra, so I assumed A1.

> >The assumption being that you really gotta overload

Easier to do if your shells have jamming devices, stealthy coatings, little
fins that deploy out and let it maneuver a bit, etc.

> --- Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:

> Did the Skinnys in Mogadishu have anything that

As a side note, that fight was ended by two mid-tech
armies with light tanks and wheeled APCs, with a mediocre doctrine and
training, working with a
high-tech light infantry force in combination.

Funny how that works out--Combined Arms is a motha'.

> --- John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > >The assumption being that you really gotta

What about a salvo from an arty battery that includes
one of the guns firing a "Screamer" round - no
warhead, just an ECM package that jams and/or draws
attention from the rest of the salvo? In game terms, it would do less damage
but have an increased chance of defeating ADS....

> --- Brian B <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> wrote:

> What about a salvo from an arty battery that

In the interest of not giving myself a throbbing headache I'm going to assume
that the standard DSII artillery invulnerability to ADS is a result of all
mentioned dirty tricks and abstract the whole mess right off the table.

G'day,

> Boom chits wreck and should have never been

As a founding member of the 1s R US club I for one am very glad they were
included, they're about the only way I ever manage to kill
anything!!! ;)
Ok the fact I us Daleks may have *something* to do with it, but if we took
gaming seriously it wouldn't be fun right?;)

> --- John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In the interest of not giving myself a throbbing

Yeah, that occurred to me about 3 seconds after I hit the send button. Hate it
when that happens.

> Brian B wrote:

Welcome to the procurement process. Happy hour starts at 2.

And the Sad Hour starts about 3 seconds after you fire it.

Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies

> -----Original Message-----
IMPORTANT: Notice to be read with this E-mail
1. Before opening any attachments, please check them for
viruses and defects.  2. This e-mail (including any
attachments) may contain confidential information for the use of the intended
recipient. 3. If you are not the intended recipient, please: contact the
sender by return
e-mail, to notify the misdirection; do not copy, print,
re-transmit, store or act in reliance on this e-mail; and
delete and destroy all copies of this e-mail.  4. Any views
expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are not
a statement of Australian Government policy unless otherwise stated. 5.
Finally, please do not remove this notice, so that any other readers are aware
of these restrictions.

> --- Ray Forsythe <erf2@wombatzone.com> wrote:

Yeah, well, it may be reality, don't ask me to put it in my gaming.....

Does that make it a variant of SADARM? ;-)

--- "Robertson, Brendan"
> <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:

> On Wednesday 19 November 2003 06:07 pm, John Atkinson wrote:

I agree wholeheartedly with you on that one.

(*gasp* It's happend, another seal has been broken.)

> I SAW your comments, you'll notice my comments were in

Because they are effective against everything except the front of tank, they
are cheap so you can build ten times as many then GMS for the same money, and
this means you can affordably stockpile large numbers all over the place.

> You missed my point -- if you're just going to say

Assume side A is lower tech then side B. Side A intiates the use technology
destroying warheads. Side B retailates in kind. End result, B has farther to
fall, so B's combat effectiveness and morale will tend fall much more so then
for A.

> Furthermore, you've painted yourself into a corner.

All you need is a microwave radiation warhead to deal with PDS. The U.S. is
doing R&D in it right now.

Alleluia, amen!

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 19:34:41 -0500 Ray Forsythe <erf2@wombatzone.com>
writes:
> Brian B wrote:

After you've read up on the history of the F-16, happy hour starts when
the alarm clock goes off.

Really, really, really warped development process. I"m still amazed it flies.

> Ray Forsythe wrote:

> Brian B wrote:

> At 4:43 PM -0800 11/19/03, Brian B wrote:

What do you think part of rolling dice is. You've got the best targeting
system in the world, top notch, expensive, He has a basic shoestring and
bailing wire ECM system that looks like the TFHB crowd built it, and you roll
a one on your shot. The lowest bidder for a subcomponent just struck.

Hey, the Bradley's pretty good, too. Could've been fielded a heck of a lot
sooner if various groups hadn't started trying to turn a mouse into an
elephant.

> on 03.11.20 0:34 PM, Michael Llaneza at maserati@earthlink.net wrote:

[quoted original message omitted]

Of course, given the emptiness of space and the long periods of
non-combat, I suspect most of the time, the issue never comes up.  Until
"the order' is given. Reacting to the order sometimes commits you to follow
through on some craziness you would never start if you took the time to assess
the action.

Also, I suspect you obey the order in hopes that 'the team' (you and the
people you have spent months locked up in a can in a vacuum with) will
survive. Being a FF (perhaps the only ship in the firing zones) at under 24
inches with a SDN pretty much forces you on to some pretty sharp horns of a
dilemna. And often the safest zone is his "6 o'clock."

 I don't see too many designs with a lot of firepower to their "6" - now
staying there might be a problem...

Gracias, Glenn

Hx, SF, and Fx: 6 mm figures, Starships and 1:6K "Wet Navy" warships are my
main interest. But I have forces in 6 through 25 mm FWIW...

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 08:51:50 +0000 Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com>
writes:
> On Wednesday, November 19, 2003, at 01:10 PM, Doug Evans wrote:

Alan Brain wrote;

> From: "Matt Tope" <mptope@omnihybrid.com>

> Regarding PD/AD fire against shells in ballistic arcs, in the 1970's

> A mate of mine is ex-RN, and he was exec on the ship in question.

> According to him it was a demonstration of super-advanced British

LOL!

The ultimate in smart weapons technology, precognitive artillery!

Of the course the latest in super-advanced British technology is the
"Amazing shrinking aircraft carrier", starts off at a modest 50,000 tonnes,
just add a soupcon of procurement process and bingo, now its 20,000 tonnes.
Still, at least it's not super-advanced French technology with their
"Amazing decent sized nuclear aircraft carrier with sudden detachable
propellor syndrome".

Regards,

> --- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:

Not quite what I was talking about, but I suppose it
can be considered part of the Fate/Chance that the
dice represent.

> John Atkinson wrote:

> >>The assumption being that you really gotta overload

Very likely, yes. Which means that the race between measures and
counter-measures is on - ie., the classical GZG opposed Quality Die roll

again <g> Sure, I know that it isn't in DS2... but that doesn't mean that
it *shouldn't* be there :-/

Later,

So le me get this straight....

> --- "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@sprintmail.com> wrote:

(Hmmm..... so in the future, the cost of a GMS will be exactly ten times that
of an equally effective RR? I'd love to see how you came up with that
figure.....)

> and this means you can affordably stockpile large

In other words, you're going to spend enough to deploy the EMP device(s), then
SAVE by using RR's instead of GMS'? Robbing Peter to pay Paul, are we?

> Assume side A is lower tech then side B. Side A

You're assuming a lot, primarily that B will be successful in it's use of this
strategy. Furthermore, you've started with a particular weapon system you
really really want to justify, and developed an entire set of strategies just
to make it effective. While this MIGHT work, IF all the dice gfo your way, it
sounds a lot like letting the weapon dictate the strategy, instead of the
other way around.

> All you need is a microwave radiation warhead to

So you pitch a fit about the assumption that Tanks will advance more than
RR's, but you're telling me that we will see no advances in shielding
battlefield gear FROM EMP? Mr.Pot, this is my friend, Mr.Kettle.

And you still haven't answered the question, IF the
EMP DOESN'T take out the PDS/ADS, how will a low
velocity weapon fare against them? (if you want to address LVC's and RR's
separately, feel free.)

> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:

> >Easier to do if your shells have jamming devices,

Amen, preach it!

> (Hmmm..... so in the future, the cost of a GMS will be

An estimate... Look at the price of a Milan 2, look at the price of an RR
round... You're right, I really can afford more RR's rounds...

> In other words, you're going to spend enough to deploy

Microwave radation warheads aren't themonuclear EMP warheads. Robbing Peter to
pay Paul? Well of course! I'm skimping on the defensive ground troops, but
insuring that they have a enough ammo to conduct a protracted
resistance.  Otherwise I'd have to scale back the equipment and/or
numbers
of the offensive ground troops and/or reduce fleet size.  Not giving the
defensive ground troops enough ammo to conduct a protracted resistance is not
an option. If dig through the archives you should be able to find the
discussion on orbital bombardment several months (a year?) ago. My strategy is
predicated on the assumption that high intensity resistance to an invader is
simply placing a big sign that says "conduct orbital bombardment here."
Therefor a protracted medium to low intensity conflict will tie down more of
the enemy forces for a longer period of time. This requires a significant
amount of munitions to be stockpiled in advance to work. Any factory capable
of build missiles will either be siezed rather quickly, or destroyed by orbial
bombardment. Trying to defend such a factory will simply pin the defensive
ground troops down to a location so they can be destroyed quickly, quite
possibly by orbital bombardment.

> You're assuming a lot, primarily that B will be

My strategy is listed above. The microwave radiation warheads are required to
make the strategy work against PDS. So they are used.

> So you pitch a fit about the assumption that Tanks

Sure there will be advances, but the question is which side will have the
advantage. Currently it very heavily weighted against the chips. Why don't you
check and see how many $100,000,000's have been spent every single year
for more than one decade by the US goverment to develop EMP/Microwave
radiation resistant chips? The material scientists swear that one day they
might be able to get carbon based chips. But if only a fraction of these
resources were spent on Microwave radiation warheads, we would quite probably
already have them inservice.

> And you still haven't answered the question, IF the

Not very likely. See above comment.

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 07:53:17 -0500 Damond Walker <damosan@comcast.net>
writes:
> On Thursday, November 20, 2003, at 03:51 AM, Ground Zero Games wrote:

I think that is covered under "Mutiny" or "Failure to obey an order in
the face of the enemy" and "Court-Martial" although the small boys
(Naval tradition- Jervis whatsitsname and (IIRC) USN DE/DD versus IJN
BB/CA types - Samar?) seem prone to suicidal charges on occasions.

Gracias,

> Imre Szabo wrote:

> >(Hmmm..... so in the future, the cost of a GMS will be

RR *rounds*, yes. What's more interesting is how many *RRs* can you afford,
though - in particular, how many RRs and their crews can you afford to
*lose*, when you send them against enemies they have only a small chance of
taking out?

> >In other words, you're going to spend enough to deploy

Who said anything about *thermonuclear* EMP warheads (well, until you
did)?
You don't need a nuke to create a really nasty EMP pulse (normal high
explosives are quite sufficient, at least for short-range applications
like
this); and microwave radiation warheads are a type of  non-nuclear type
of EMP warheads.

> This requires a significant amount of munitions to be stockpiled in

What makes you think that stockpiles of or factories capable of producing
*RR rounds* will be any easier to protect than stockpiles/factories for
*missiles*...?

> My strategy is listed above. The microwave radiation warheads are

And where did you get *these* weapons from? Those stockpiles and factories
you've just said you can't defend, or something...? <g>

> The material scientists swear that one day they

Nope. Oh, sure, we could produce a weapon capable of taking out *civilian*
electronics quite easily even with today's tech, but most of the military ones
are much, *much* tougher than that. All those dollars spent have
already started to get results, you see :-/

> > And you still haven't answered the question, IF the

Not very likely that the EMP doesn't take out the PDS/ADS, or not very
likely that the low-velocity round will defeat the PDS/ADS when the EMP
doesn't do its job? Not that it matters; I agree with both <g>

Later,

> --- "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@sprintmail.com> wrote:

Again, that's now, who knows how much cheaper ATGM's will be in the future....
I suspect the price gap between guided and unguided systems will narrow, not
widen.

  My strategy
> is predicated on the assumption that high intensity

No arguements there.

> Therefor a protracted medium to low intensity

Have to disagree with you there.... from an offensive POV, a quick, fast
strike before the enemy can respond is best. And for that, the key will be
superior troops, superior equipment.

Yes, if you're the defender, you'll want to fight a
protracted, low-intensity conflict.  But how are you
going to deliver your EMP's for EVERY battle if I control air and space? And
if you pop one before EVERY guerilla raid, how long will it be before the
civilian population gets tired of your antics and losing power, losing grandpa
because your EMP fries his pacemaker? And how long will it be before the
occupier figures out, "Hmmm.... Emp goes off, Guerilla attacks start up," and
begins to use that intelligence to his advantage?

> > You're assuming a lot, primarily that B will be

And again, AS I ALSO SAID ABOVE, your strategy is pinning a lot of your hopes
on some very questionable assumptions.

The microwave
> radiation warheads are required

So you're basing your entire strategy on eliminating my PDS so that you can
wield RR's against me? You'd better hope I base MY entire strategy ON PDS. But
you'll be wrong.

> Sure there will be advances, but the question is

Again, we're talking about the future here, it's all theoretical. I believe
you yourself said it was arrogant to claim to know which side of the race will
bbe ahead. But I find it netirely plausible that by the time the game is set
in, there will be electronics capable of resiting damage from EMP.

> > And you still haven't answered the question, IF

In other words, you're assuming that in EVERY battle that EVER takes place in
the future, EMP WILL have taken out ALL PDS? Wow.... maybe you should post to
the discussion of weapons to be added/removed in DS3.
I mean, why should we bother to have PDS? After all, according to you, they
won't be a factor because everyone will Pop EMP's before every battle.....

Or maybe you're just unwilling to admit that PDS will be so effective against
low velocity weapons because you want to be argumentative, so you have to
concoct a scenario that eliminates them from the equation.

> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:

> You don't need a nuke to create a really nasty EMP

To be fair to Imre, I think he'd agree with that, and actually, that seems to
be his point, ie that you don't need a Nuke to have EMP.

Where your opinions differ, and this is where I think you and I agree and Imre
disagrees with us, is in the question of just how effective EMP will be,
regardless
of how it's generated, in rendering high-tech future
weapons systems inoperable. I am glad to see from your later comments that my
suspicions are at least
being supported, if not completely confirmed - the
shielding/hardening of systems has at least a fighting
chance, and from your comments maybe even the clear lead at this point.

Furthermore, I'mre's Thermonuke comment failed to
address my other objection -  how to guarantee
successful delivery of the EMP in the first place.

> Furthermore, Imre's Thermonuke comment failed to

<grin> AIE--Alarishi Imperial Express--guaranteed point to point
delivery, anywhere in explored space. (Special services charges may apply).

("AIE!" is also what the accountant says when he sees the special service
charges)

--- "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:
> >Furthermore, Imre's Thermonuke comment failed to

Heh. Considering these EMP's are supposed to be part of a Low Budget defensive
strategy, and considering that said strategy is for a protracted low intensity
conflict, and considering the force using this strategy will probably need to
deploy them almost
every time they plan to attack the occupying/agressor
force, I don't foresee hiring the AIE as being a
feasible component of the strategy. ;-)

> RR *rounds*, yes. What's more interesting is how many *RRs* can you

There job isn't to take out heavy armor. There job is take out light armor to
get the enemey to keep his heavy armor on the planet.

> >Microwave radation warheads aren't themonuclear EMP warheads.

I had the impression that some people were assuming I was talking about
nuclear EMP RR rounds because of what they said about the cost.

> What makes you think that stockpiles of or factories capable of

Cache them all over the place. You'll have to do the same for any munitons for
a protracted low intensity struggle.

> And where did you get *these* weapons from? Those stockpiles and

Take 12 milllion RR rounds divided it into groups of 12, and cache them in 10
million different places and do this on each conteninent...

> Nope. Oh, sure, we could produce a weapon capable of taking out

Tougher, not proof. The microwave warheads currently under R&D are to take out
millitary systems. Also there is a very big difference in between taking out a
chip and taking out a chip conected to a sensor that is trying to recieve a
signal.

> Not very likely that the EMP doesn't take out the PDS/ADS, or not very

Not very likely that the EMP won't take out PDS/ADS.

> > Therefor a protracted medium to low intensity

Try a quick strike, get shot at by a massive orbital bombardment (the landing
covering force), lose a bunch of men and equipment. Not a very good plan
unless you have tanks that can take spaceships. Much better to either keep
them away from the planet with the fleet, or go low intensity and keep them
bogged down. So they can't go take over another planet.

> Yes, if you're the defender, you'll want to fight a

If I'm using RR rounds with microwave radiation warheads to take out the
electronics of individual vehicles, your control of the air and space is
irrelevant. As the civilian effects, the degredation is an inverse function,
so they most of the time they won't be effected.

> So you're basing your entire strategy on eliminating

Nope. The strategy is to down your troops, heavy armor, and prevent you from
generating income for your war effort from my planet. RR's and microwave
radiation warheads are just one tactic to implement the strategy.

> Again, we're talking about the future here, it's all

It's also plausable that they will be bear bean and butnaked to the advanced
EMP devices of the time... Which is why I'm about finished with this thread.

> In other words, you're assuming that in EVERY battle

If you want the civilian economy in tact, you won't use hemisphere tech
killing nuclear EMP bombs. If you want to neutralize a tank, it may be a very
effective method with a conventional microwave radiation warhead with a
very localized effect, in a RR rounds, a missile, off-board artillary
rounds, etc...

> Or maybe you're just unwilling to admit that PDS will

Reactive armor was so effective that designers built tandem warhead heat
rounds. If PDS is so effective at shooting things down, designers will come up
with a way to beat it. Microwave radiation warheads is simply one possibilty.

> Imre Szabo wrote:

> >Nope. Oh, sure, we could produce a weapon capable of taking out

Several orders of magnitude tougher, and I'm quite well aware about how far
the microwave warhead R&D has advanced. So far, the defensive side is
*way*
ahead. Which is a pity, since my job would be one hell of a lot easier if EMP
warheads could reliably knock out the target's defensive systems.

> Also there is a very big difference in between

Depends entirely on what *type* of signal the sensor is looking for... and how
it is designed.

> >Not very likely that the EMP doesn't take out the PDS/ADS, or not

Don't bet your life on it. I'm not going to, and it is my job that depends
on finding a counter to PDS/ADS.

Regards,

From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>

> Several orders of magnitude tougher, and I'm quite well aware about

Given the toughness of the ERC-32 and similar space-qualified
processors, I don't see EMP as ever being good enough to take out systems
hardened against it. Physical destruction is easier.

> >Also there is a very big difference in between
and
> how it is designed.

Yup. The whole architecture, not just the components, must be examined. But
it's possible (even easy) to make whole systems that are at least as tough as
the weakest component.

> Don't bet your life on it. I'm not going to, and it is my job that

Remember: if you can't decrease the signal, increase the noise. A PDS whose

> --- Brian B <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> wrote:

> of a Low Budget defensive strategy, and considering

The problem with a Low Budget defensive strategy is that it no longer works.
Hasn't worked for 50 years and isn't going to start working in the future when
Real armies have microchips in every bullet. Technology wins fights, plain and
simple. Look at every fight the US has been in since 1940: Superior
communications, superior fire support, superior mechanization win the day. See
also Israel vs. Arabs.

Hell, in Vietnam the political and senior military leadership made every
possible mistake, the terrain was perfect for guerilla warfare, the PAVN had
both the Soviets and the Chinese Communists funnelling billions of dollars
worth of weapons in as fast as they could, and the US Army and USMC still won
every fight they got into, still ran around most of the country at will, and
still killed over a million Vietnamese Communists. In fact, the US even
managed to destroy the NLF infrastructure completely in 1968. The only thing
resembling 'even fights' were those
involving 5-6 times as many Vietnamese as Americans.

And the only interesting war games scenarios involving
low-tech vs. high-tech require you to artificially
take away much of the advantages of the high-tech
force in superior C&C and superior fire support, plus throw in such grotesque
numbers that it's ridiculous.

The other major factor is that technology of weapons is a factor of budget,
and so is training. If you can't afford guns, you generally can't afford
proper training regimes either. Not always (cf Australia, Canada), but
usually. Training is bloody expensive, and if you can't afford to keep your
troops in the field firing off their weapons they aren't going to be any damn
good (again, classic examples are Israel vs. Arabs and US vs. Practically
Everyone We've Fought
[except for the Germans]).

Now, apply this to SF colonial warfare. Your
very-expensive high-tech brigade battle group or
division task force (the largest formation mentioned
in the official GZG timeline) can beat 10-20 times
it's own numbers in low tech garbage troops. Not an unrealistic estimation
given the modern examples of Iraq vs US, Israel vs the Arabs, and US vs.
Chinese Communists. Given a choice between raising 15 Brigades of People's
Militia and knowing they aren't
worth a damn or getting together 2-3 brigades of
Regulars and then keeping them in the field 4-6 months
a year so they get very, very, very good, what is anyone gifted with at least
the ration of brains normally given by God to little white mice going to
choose? And what are we going to use for our (limited by shipping
requirements) expeditionary forces? Militia might be fine for fending off
pirates or somesuch, but without a modicum of serious training and a
commitment to equip them with modern weaponry they aren't going to do much
more.

G'day,

> Now, apply this to SF colonial warfare. Your

This may be a naive question but will it cost as much to keep the "15 Brigades
of People's Militia" with their low tech "live off the land"
stuff as the high tech "2-3 brigades of Regulars"? Also what are the
resupply issues like? For instance, as far as I can tell from the Aussie
defence papers I've read we're leaning toward buying German not US tanks
because the US ones don't have enough reach in the petrol tank. Most of this
stuff is beyond my area of knowledge, but won't economics come as much into
play in the future as it does now? Ok the NAC with supposedly
cutting edge and mega-population should kick everyone's butt, but them
aside how would it stand?

Cheers

> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:

> This may be a naive question but will it cost as

Maybe not. The Regulars might be even more expensive.

> the resupply issues like? For instance, as far as I

Well, it depends.  HMT engines will need high-grade
fuel. Don't know about their fuel efficiency, though. FGP probably runs off of
distilled water. And CFE
runs the gamut--most likely multi-fuel engines that
can burn anything from ethanol to jet fuel. Yes, a
high-tech army does require a logistics tail.  That's
the price you have to pay to win fights.

> Alan Brain wrote:

[Lots of bits where we agree snipped]

> Looking at it from the opposite side, (I've been involved with making

Mostly because the missiles and grenades I'm designing are a few% the size of
the weapons your products defend against, so have very little spare mass
and volume for counter-measures :-( Naval SSMs don't have to be
man-portable; my products do.

So far, the best anti-PDS weapon system available to us is a .5" sniper
rifle :-/

Later,

From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>

> Mostly because the missiles and grenades I'm designing are a few % the

But you *may* be able to make up in volume of fire what you lose on individual
round effectiveness.

No, that doesn't help the individual with a Panzerfaust/Buzzbomb or
modern equivalent (NLAW?).

> So far, the best anti-PDS weapon system available to us is a .5"
sniper
> rifle :-/

A 12-round salvo of Mortar shells, mixed jammers, blinders, and STRIX
would do the job. But just the ammo would weigh half a tonne. And getting your
own PGMs to home in means that some sensors the target may have cannot be
jammed effectively, or you get fratricide. Maybe
GPS with pre-computed-at-fire-time dead-reckoning?

Even the Yanks are developing PG mortars now.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/pgmm.htm
(Based on a German design IIRC) They'll catch up to where Sweden was 5 years
ago, in a few years anyway.

See
http://www.global-defence.com/2000/pages/mortar.html

As for the Russkis - see
http://www.rusarm.ru/products/army/smelchak.htm

Their 240mm stuff isn't exactly "Man Portable" by any definition.

http://www.rusarm.ru/exprod.htm
Is an interesting page though.

The simple things in life are the best... <grin>

Gracias, Glenn

Hx, SF, and Fx: 6 mm figures, Starships and 1:6K "Wet Navy" warships are my
main interest. But I have forces in 6 through 25 mm FWIW...

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 06:57:03 +0100 Oerjan Ohlson
> <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> writes:

> Alan Brain wrote:

> >Mostly because the missiles and grenades I'm designing are a few %

Which effectively means "well-prepared ambushes only". Of course that's
the preferred way to use 'em already, but it'd be nice to retain *some*
encounter-battle capability :-/

> No, that doesn't help the individual with a Panzerfaust/Buzzbomb or

Which is a problem if the individuals start thinking that *they're* as
single-shot as their weapons.

> >So far, the best anti-PDS weapon system available to us is a .5"
sniper
> rifle :-/

As long as you're far enough away, yes. (You'll need at least 4 tubes to

fire those rounds fast enough though, unless you have a *very* fast
auto-loader.)

> And getting your own PGMs to home in means that some sensors the target

Won't help much against moving targets, though - particularly not with
the long flight times mortar rounds have.

> Even the Yanks are developing PG mortars now.

<g> It's about time, don't you think?

> They'll catch up to where Sweden was 5 years ago, in a few years

Unless they cancel the program again, like they did with SADARM... the latest
Iraqi war came just too late to save that program. (Not that I
complain, of course - it makes BONUS the most likely replacement now
that
United Defence has bought it :-/ )

Later,

The latest MetalStorm grenade launcher fires at 300-250,000 rpm.

http://www.metalstorm.com/

Of course, it's currently vehicle mounted but it could probably be converted
into a point-defence system with some re-design.

Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies

> -----Original Message-----
IMPORTANT: Notice to be read with this E-mail
1. Before opening any attachments, please check them for
viruses and defects.  2. This e-mail (including any
attachments) may contain confidential information for the use of the intended
recipient. 3. If you are not the intended recipient, please: contact the
sender by return
e-mail, to notify the misdirection; do not copy, print,
re-transmit, store or act in reliance on this e-mail; and
delete and destroy all copies of this e-mail.  4. Any views
expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are not
a statement of Australian Government policy unless otherwise stated. 5.
Finally, please do not remove this notice, so that any other readers are aware
of these restrictions.

John, that of course is based on several assumptions:

1) You get local space superiority for several days (a week should be
sufficient to gain a base position in strength) and then can hold aerospace
parity. Loss of at least Aerospace parity means you will be
strangled into inability to resist - Logistics is #1 in strategic
warfare, right after Reconnaissance. <VBG>

2) You are not assuming that a force in orbit automatically negates the land
forces' potential via space to mud attacks. (I know, every zoomie's fantasy
since at least 1930's.) If that was so then you would be playing the old SPI
SF games instead of Full Thrust, Dirtside 2 and Stargrunt 2. <grin> But that
of course is a big issue in the past discussions.

3) You are not stuck on balkanized world instead of a GZG star-spanning
forces type game. LOL!

But all that aside, any force of mid-tech plus professionals, adequately
trained and led, should be able to conventionally defeat  low-tech
"People's Militia" unless radically outnumbered and cut off from supply
(I might note the latter is critical IMO.)   And should win any guerilla
war unless the political will fails (I refer to Vietnam where, in
reality, it was won on the field and lost at the table - like the
perennial Israeli problem, only quicker.)

Gracias, Glenn

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:06:59 -0800 (PST) John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:

> Brendan Robertson wrote:

> >>A 12-round salvo of Mortar shells, mixed jammers, blinders, and

We're talking about using 120mm+ mortar grenades to *defeat* PDS/ADS
here, so you'll still need at least 4 tubes just to keep the length of the
tubes reasonable (as in "not sticking up above the surrounding tree tops").

(For those who don't know MetalStorm, the system stores all rounds in the
barrel, one in front of the other.)

But yes, as a *PDS* the MetalStorm should work OK.

Later,

Must have misread the thread detail. Could still work to defeat PDS, but it
would start getting into HKP vehicle weapon scale. Fairly pointless for man
portable weapons.

Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies

> -----Original Message-----
IMPORTANT: Notice to be read with this E-mail
1. Before opening any attachments, please check them for
viruses and defects.  2. This e-mail (including any
attachments) may contain confidential information for the use of the intended
recipient. 3. If you are not the intended recipient, please: contact the
sender by return
e-mail, to notify the misdirection; do not copy, print,
re-transmit, store or act in reliance on this e-mail; and
delete and destroy all copies of this e-mail.  4. Any views
expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are not
a statement of Australian Government policy unless otherwise stated. 5.
Finally, please do not remove this notice, so that any other readers are aware
of these restrictions.

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 06:56:33 +0100 KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de
> (K.H.Ranitzsch) writes:
<snip>
> Under most other assumption, you will have several days' warning,

Speaking from History and recent first hand observation, if things go to Hades
in the 'normal' manner then you will know generally that something is going
down but where, when, and how are the essence of strategic and tactical
surprise... and Intentions is still much more an art then Capabilities. I
might have a good ideas of what SinoLaysian can do in a conflict with
SpitofPlace but what are their intentions has much more to do with their
evaluation of what is 'acceptable, profitable, and
possible' then an outsider - especially if the culture being studied is
inherently different from the culture of the nation doing the studying. A
recent comment (last week) in an off the cuff conversation between two
SEA analysts included this incredulous exchange -

A: "It still amazes me that they can forgive, and even welcome us in
[deleted] after all the horrible things we did there in those years."
(This person was there and 'did' some of those things - all within the
rules of war and, shall we say, 'recon'?)

B: "I's the tourist dollars."

A: "In part, but it seems to be a part of their culture to forgive us. More so
then in the Middle East anyway."

> Yes, six weeks is pretty unlikely.

At least that can be the 'high end' IMO. The biggest problem is knowing when
the 'threshold of Diplomacy' has been passed in time to reverse the course of
events and avoid armed conflict. Assuming you want to. One definition of war
is "An Armed Conflict between at least two nations when each thinks they can
win at an acceptable cost; and at least two of
them are wrong."    Not my definition, not really accurate but has some
seeds of geopolitical truth.

> Greetings

Gracias,

Six weeks for knowing that something is going down (but armed conflict on this
scale is till just one option.)

When, where and  in what amount is highly dependent on cross-cultural
understanding, capabilities, and most importantly a correct assessment of
Intentions. The latter is frequently the Achilles's Heel.

Pearl Harbor is an American example of how that works, every nation has
multiple examples.

Some people who should (?) have known better still believed that was war was
not unavoidable to the very end of 'peace'.

Gracias, Glenn

Hx, SF, and Fx: 6 mm figures, Starships and 1:6K "Wet Navy" warships are my
main interest. But I have forces in 6 through 25 mm FWIW...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:37:31 +1000 Andrae Muys
> <andrae.muys@braintree.com.au> writes:

> This may be a naive question but will it cost as much to keep the "15
stuff
as the high tech "2-3 brigades of Regulars"? Also what are the resupply
issues like? For instance, as far as I can tell from the Aussie defence papers
I've read we're leaning toward buying German not US tanks because the US ones
don't have enough reach in the petrol tank. Most of this stuff is beyond my
area of knowledge, but won't economics come as much into play in the future as
it does now? Ok the NAC with supposedly cutting edge and
mega-population should kick everyone's butt, but them aside how would it
stand?

The problem with the M1 Abrams is that it burns about twice the fuel as a
Leopard II to cover the same distance over the same terrain. This makes for a
significant increase in logistical burden for an equivalent capability.

"Money is the sinews of war." While economics will play a major role, there
are also cultural influences that can heavily weigh the how effectively that
money is spent. For example, a state where the military is held in low regard
by the population isn't going to attract a lot of high quality personnel for
the officer corps. This can have a catastrophic effect on military operations.
The professionalism of the R&D personnel can make a huge difference between
acquiring good equipment and mediocre junk. Look at British tank development
in WWII and US military small arms development from 1870 to 1920 and 1945 to
present for examples. On top of this you have
lawmakers who consistently put being re-elected (for democratic
governments)
and/or prestige (for totalitarian regimes) as being more important then
military priorities (most of this tends to go away during a life or death
struggle, but you still have live with legacy of what went on before).

> --- "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@sprintmail.com> wrote:

> If you look at battles, you are correct. If you

Funny, I thought we were wargaming, not playing "Count the Ballots". I may
stand corrected in your case, but if that's so you're on the wrong mailing
list.

> > And the only interesting war games scenarios

You're missing one major factor: The superior C4I, superior logistics, and
superior mobility of the
high-tech force means it is not the low-tech force's
choice when to come out and play. They either engage
on the enemy's terms, or let the high-tech forces romp
through their rear areas and trash their supply lines and headquarters at
will.

> You've done a great job contradicting yourself.

Not at all. I've said that training requires big bucks, and if you've got that
kind of money you can generally afford decent gear too.

> The German military in the 1920's and early thirties

I have this mental image of Imre leading a paintball team up against a platoon
of airborne.

> The problem with a Low Budget defensive strategy is

If you look at battles, you are correct. If you look at wars, you are wrong.
Korea -- high tech force stalemated.
Vietnam -- high tech force defeated.
Lebonon -- high tech force defeated.
Grenada -- high tech force wins.
Panama -- high tech force wins.
Afganistan I -- high tech force defeated -- USSR.
Iraq I -- high tech force wins limited objective.
Afghanistan II -- yet to be determined.
Iraq II -- yet to be determined.

As for the Israelis, they have said several times that they could have used
the equipment of their enemy and still won. The only difference would have
been slightly higher casualties. Training and skill is what made the
difference.

> Hell, in Vietnam the political and senior military

And still lost the war.

> And the only interesting war games scenarios involving

If the low tech enemy is smart, they won't engage until they have most of
those advantages.

> The other major factor is that technology of weapons

You've done a great job contradicting yourself. There are quite a few third
world countries that have bought advanced fighters and still aren't worth pile
feces. It's better to be good with you can afford, then have some high tech
toys and less skell.

> Now, apply this to SF colonial warfare. Your

The German military in the 1920's and early thirties effectively plowed
through as many men as possible to create as large a trained reserve as
possible. Without this, the Wermacht would have been much smaller at the
beginning of WWII. Also note that Germany in this time period encouraged
civillian hobbies with military applications, such as gliders, etc. There is
no reason why goverments can't do the same now or in the future.

Would you guys (Imbre and John) at least work out a framework of common
reference?

It seems like Imre is talking about protracted, guerilla-type conflicts
(which
low-tech forces are wont to fight), while John keeps mentioning
advantages or
concerns that exist only when a high-tech force engages a low-tech in a
stand-up fight.

You guys are discussing PSB for gosh-sakes... with that in mind, you're
both right.

> Imre wrote:

> If you look at battles, you are correct. If you look at wars, you are

Lets add a few British conflicts to the list just to get a slighty wider
perspective on low tech vs high tech,

Malaya -- High tech force wins
Burma -- High tech force wins
Sierra Leone -- High tech force wins

Of course the high tech force (Britain) won in all of these cases by the high
tech in a more precise manner rather than relying on high tech firepower, and
had full political support.

Regards,

I HAVE THIS MENTAL IMAGE OF IMRE LEADING A PAINTBALL TEAM UP AGAINST A VERY
STREETWISE GROUP OF GIRL SCOUTS AND GETTING HIS HEAD HANDED TO HIM ON A PLATE.
..

DAWGIE

> I HAVE THIS MENTAL IMAGE OF IMRE LEADING A PAINTBALL TEAM UP AGAINST A

I played laser tag a few years ago with about 60 guys, of whom about 20 were
SEALs. The top scorer for the day was not a SEAL, but an architect.

In any event, as the one who initially kicked off this thread, I'm going to
suggest that we kill it, unless someone wants to reply to my "Heavy AGL
=
Very Light Mortars" suggestion --Adrian replied offlist but no one else
seems to have seen it.

THANKS MATT!

i was beating my brain dead brain for the exact names of those wars y'all
mentioned.

but y'all should also include the MAO WAR, too, and the shitty do down in the
Persian Gulf that was a prolonged high tech vs low tech guerilla war, too.

as for Grenada being a war, i think that anyone there who was shot at and shot
back might view your comment with a bit jaundiced view...

DAWGIE

> At 11:23 AM -0500 11/25/03, laserlight@quixnet.net wrote:

Kind of, but the AGLs are getting higher in velocity which lowers their HE
content. Mortars also have the ability to deliver more unusual rounds for top
attack and are great smoke delivery systems.

> At 2:56 PM +0000 11/25/03, Matt Tope wrote:

This was not a defeat militarily, but politically. The US kicked the living
shit out of the VC and the NVA. We never put our full brunt of force against
North Vietnam.

> Lebonon -- high tech force defeated.
Political loss
> Lets add a few British conflicts to the list just to get a slighty

WWII -- Mass production over super high tech (it's marginal that the
Germans were more advanced in all fields. We started to beat them to the punch
on fighters in production for quite a while there).

> Of course the high tech force (Britain) won in all of these cases by

There's more to winning the war than technology. The Battle Of France had
arguably more technology on the side of the French and British in regards to
Tank design. But the German's with the smaller force, won through
determination, elan and better coordination.

> PS: Can Grenada count as a war? I thought in a war both sides had to

There was shooting. Just mostly when the Red troops had superiority.

--- FlakMagnet72 <flakmagnet@tabletop-battlezone.com>
wrote:
> Would you guys (Imbre and John) at least work out a

Imre was talking stand up fights with vast numbers of marshalled recoilless
rifles, but then changed his mind. Of course, we were also talking about
wargames scenario, but Imre now wants to talk about political implications and
such.

Last I checked, the point of this whole list is to talk about pushing little
metal toys around a table. Given a neat SF set of rules, we have to come up
with assumptions that allow us to use at least a vaugely recognizable version
of those rules for scenarios that are at least roughly balanced. Right? The
second priority is a commitment to a "Hard SF" that at least pays lip service
to believablity and reality. Given those priorities, that's what I'm talking
about. Imre is merely being argumentative because he has an aversion to
agreeing with anyone, most especially me.

> In any event, as the one who initially kicked off this thread, I'm

Ryan said:
> Kind of, but the AGLs are getting higher in velocity which lowers

Yep, I was thinking either 1" or 1.5" burst radius with 3 bursts per shot.
IIRC, AP rounds are d8 vs infantry, AT rounds are d12x2 vs
armor--although
that may be a little too gung ho, d12 might be better. Unlike mortars, they
can direct fire with a minimum range of only 3 inches.

> On Tuesday 25 November 2003 12:01 pm, John Atkinson wrote:

> Imre was talking stand up fights with vast numbers of

Yeah, the discussion has mushroomed beyond the simple start. But what's being
discussed is still just detailed, background-setting PSB.

> Last I checked, the point of this whole list is to

Nominally balanced sure...

I think balance is only important in competitive games. Scenarios can be
hoplessly one-sided and still fun to play in a "let's see what the
underdog
can squeak out of this botch-job" way.

> The second

If that's you're stance on why you're hammering away and dismissing every one
of Imre's suggestions, then you're nailing jello to a tree. You're essentially
arguing that his version of PSB is bogus because you don't buy it.

Given that future innovations are an unknown, tech-PSB is largely
synonymous with a SWAG[1] anyway.

You're doing what my oldest son does to my middle son: Telling him that the
way he wants to pretend isn't a valid way to pretend.

> Imre

Sheesh, if the man wants to PSB RR's into feasibility, let him. You're
urinating in his Wheaties because you like him as much as he likes you. It's
not like Imre's got a lock on "Voted least reasonable" between you two.

 If I ever meet up with both of you, remind me to bring "John/Imre
Mutual Admiration Society" buttons for your lapels.

> On 25 Nov 2003 at 9:39, Imre A. Szabo wrote:

> The German military in the 1920's and early thirties effectively

Germany "plowed through" all those men on an unsupportable economic model.
Hitler made the trains run on time and revived the economy, but he did so with
huge amounts of public money. Germany's tax model couldn't support it. Hitler
financed his build up with a lot of money borrowed by foreigners. This would
have devastated the country if it wasn't for the fact that Hitler had no
intention of paying it all back.

So, it's not impossible for a nation now, or in the future, to do the kind of
build up Germany did in the 30s. It's just very hard to manage without an
imminent war. The Soviet Union tried to do something similar throughout the
Cold War, but with a different
economic base -- where more of the country's GDP went into the
government -- and with a less efficient infrastructure. The end
result was bankruptcy.

Even planet wide (as in oceans, or really long loiter aircraft with Fusion
power) if the satellite network doesn't exist (or goes poof!) a strike force
can be difficult to track down on EMCON A. [Uh, Beth, that essentially means
no active transmissions. None. Period. Never, nunca, not at all.]

Gracias, Glenn

Hx, SF, and Fx: 6 mm figures, Starships and 1:6K "Wet Navy" warships are my
main interest. But I have forces in 6 through 25 mm FWIW...

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 04:53:01 -0800 (PST) John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:57:55 -0500 "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@sprintmail.com>
writes: <snip>
> "Money is the sinews of war." While economics will play a major role,
Hallelujah, Amen!

P40 without supercharger anyone?

Which brings up a question. What miniatures do you use for "aero" units
in DS 2?  A propeller-less (as in Fusion or HMT powered) WW2 looking
craft with mods would make an alternative SF strike craft. The Hurricane
look-alike with MDC/HKP weapons slung under the wing...

Gracias,

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 14:56:40 -0000 "Matt Tope" <mptope@omnihybrid.com>
writes: <snip>
> PS: Can Grenada count as a war? I thought in a war both sides had to

Not if you shoot your own for them. There were some totally unacceptable
constraints in the Map/grid end (trust me, I know) that led to Blue on
Blue fatal fire incidents that was totally unnecessary except fro the fact
that excessive OPSEC was practiced by those too ignorant to ask questions.

Gracias,

[quoted original message omitted]

> This was not a defeat militarily, but politically. The US kicked the

Did we win? No. If we put our full might into it, we might have won, but then
what would have been the consequences in the rest of the world? There would
certainly be several million more dead vietmesse and tens of thousands of more
dead G.I.'s, the US miilitary would probably have missed two equipment upgrade
cycles instead of one. I hate to think of what that might have tempted the
USSR into doing in the early and mid 1980's...

> >Lebonon -- high tech force defeated.

Doesn't matter, we still lost.

> WWII -- Mass production over super high tech (it's marginal that the

Luckily for a lot of Allied and Soviet soldiers, a lot of the times they
squandered thier super weapons (which had a lot of teething problems) on green
troops who did not know how to fight. The only thing they might have been able
to do would have been to prolong the war a little while (a couple of months)
longer and drive the death toll higher.

> There's more to winning the war than technology. The Battle Of France

And much better skill at the operational levels.

> Lets add a few British conflicts to the list just to get a slighty

Malaya was an interesting case, the insurgency was centered on an ethnic
minority. I read a book on it many years ago, but I don't remember very
much.  I think it would be very interesting to find/or do a study
comparing
and contrasting US and UK counter-insurgency techniques in the 20th
century.

> PS: Can Grenada count as a war? I thought in a war both sides had to

After the bloody nose the US got in Lebonon, we wanted an easy win.

> Would you guys (Imbre and John) at least work out a framework of

I understand John quit well. He and Dawgface are too busy trying to poke fun,
make of me to bother.

> It seems like Imre is talking about protracted, guerilla-type

Actually, the proper role of a low tech force is to go guerilla whenever a
high tech force is arround and go more or less conventional when the high tech
force leaves to try to force it to comeback. The intent is to tie down the
high tech forces so they can't be used else where (invade the next planet,
etc.) and prevent the enemy from economically exploiting the planet.

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 14:03:15 -0500 "laserlight@quixnet.net"
<laserlight@quixnet.net> <snip>
> IAS

Enlighten me!  We are looking at a set of _rules_  as a source for
discussing projected 'real' science? or just as a source for rules mechanics?

Gracias,

Wet navy add-on rules, and very well done, used to be here:
http://www.downport.com/bard/bard/gail/gail4018.html
but seem to have vanished since.

If anyone knows where they are now, by all means please post the URL!

> on 03.11.28 11:22 AM, Imre A. Szabo at ias@sprintmail.com wrote:

If you do a search for gail fire fusion steel navy design

there is still a cached copy available.

on 03.11.28 11:03 AM, Edward Lipsett at translation@intercomltd.com wrote:
> Wet navy add-on rules, and very well done, used to be here:

> >>Well that just makes orbital bombardment all the easier, because you

Actually, Fire Fusion and Steel (FFS) is a source book for construction rules
for a gaming system... The system includes both an RPG (Traveller New Era) and
a ground miniatures games (Striker II) and space combat (Brilliant Lances for
small scale, Battle Rider for large scale). It's based on real science, and
extrapolations from real science, but they've made a lot of simplifying
assumptions to make it more user friendly. But even with these simplifying
assumptions, building things in FFS is MUCH MORE complex then FT or DSII. You
can build tanks, spacecraft, cybernetic limbs, missiles, small arms
ammunitions, guns, mortars, etc., etc., etc. Not covered include wet navy
ships, robots, disintegrators, primitive transport, genetic engineering, etc.
They planned on including these things in a future product that was never
published (major bummer).

If you're really interested, try to find some Traveller fans in your area.

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 21:22:50 -0500 "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@sprintmail.com>
writes: <snip>
> Enlighten me! We are looking at a set of _rules_ as a source for

Bottom line, we are using "filtered" fuzzy science 'extrapolations' of a
feaking war game (albeit a complex one) as a basis for discussing
psuedo-reality.

Okay, I just wanted to make sure I had that straight.

I thought maybe somebody was using real science for a second.

Gracias,

> Bottom line, we are using "filtered" fuzzy science 'extrapolations' of

The baiss for FFS is real science. But the assumptions they make are to make
it managable without a Phd. in every field of science and engineering. For
example, the effects of atmosphere and space on particle beams weapons is base
on real science. The construction rule for particle beam weapons, however,
have simplifing assumptions. Otherwise 99.9% of gamers could not use it. As it
is, I doubt more then 10% of gamers can use FFS.

> Imre Szabo wrote:

> >Bottom line, we are using "filtered" fuzzy science 'extrapolations'
of a
> >feaking war game (albeit a complex one) as a basis for discussing

Um, well. Better make that "The basis for FFS is real science and technology
as it was known to the general public at the time of writing." That's not
exactly the same thing, I'm afraid...

Isn't it FFS where a computer rather less powerful than the pocket calculator
I lost some years ago took up a cubic meter or two inside a spaceship?

Regards,

***
Isn't it FFS where a computer rather less powerful than the pocket calculator
I lost some years ago took up a cubic meter or two inside a spaceship?
***

I think that was the original Traveller... ;->=

I could be wrong, but thought that was cleaned up somewhat by TNE.

The_Beast

Actually that was cleared by the deck plans. A computer (and associated

workstation) took up a ton of volume (14m3) or 2 squares on the deck.

At least the computers in Traveller were smaller than the ones in Tron
:)

Michael Brown

[quoted original message omitted]