> --- John K Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
That depends. If your force is Inferior Tech level, then the only bonus you
would get would be if you are costing the vehicles with the
optional points system. Otherwise it lies in the scenario set-up. If,
on the other hand, you are a Standard Tech Force, and you equip your vehicles
with Antiquated Systems, then you will also realize a (small) savings in
capacity on each vehicle.
> Is there no option
Advancing your Tech Level is part of the Dirtside Campaign System (TBA), and
is beyond the scope of this post:)
However, you can always build more capability into your vehicle, just pay more
capacity (see below).
For reference, it took the USSR 2 years of intense effort to build a
B-29ski by reverse engineering three interned B-29's. The odds of you
reverse engineering a Martian Mk. 2465464 Fire Control System are nil.
> If so, great, but kind of invalidates the statement above. If not,
So MBT-2150 is Enhanced (d10), MBT-2120 has systems filling identical
capacity but produce d8, and MBT-2080 uses d6. IFV-2150 is also d10,
but APC-2150 has intentionally less capable (and smaller) d8 systems,
leaving extra capacity for troops. (see below)
> > In a revised construction system, I would like to see the capacity
Thanks
J
What is meant by the tech levels. Ihe human brain is an antiquated, inferior,
obsolete system, yet we still use them (I do anyway).
Also, the governments of the world say that the older technology like the
M1903 0.30 cal bolt action rifle is antiquated and obsolete though I can shoot
twice as far as the modern 5.56 NATO, however, we still use the same
technology. And the US military in their infinite wisdom, gets rid of working
technology in favor of newer, not necessarily better, technology. I have
visited many US Navy ships, living near Norfolk VA, and over the past 20 years
ships have seen the "obosolete" backwriting boards replaced with modern
computers. God save us when the computers crash!
My biggest gripe with DS2 is that the milita weapons are assumed to be
inferior to the regular army weapons, yet I have been in National Guard
armories that still have M1 Garands from WW2 and Korea, which IMHO are better
weapons than the POS M16 series.
Laser range finders and all the techno gimicks are good tools, but they break
more than the older stuff. the optic coincidental and split imaging targeting
systems are off by a few percent which is generally better than the laser
range finder than can variate due to humidity, jostling of the electronics,
and user error. Everybody assumes that the
LRF is great, but in reality I have seen LRFs off by as much as 20+% due
solely to being misaligned by the bumps in normal operation (even within the
protected case). the best way to accurately measure the range to target is to
measure it out as in land surveying, but that is impracticale under combat
conditions, unless you have fanitical or suicidal troops.
Are we all going to Windows based combat with the "superior" computer is
asking are we really sure we want to fire the main gun as it is aimed?
Tech levels I generally think are an artificial divide on technology.
The 5-in naval shell from WW2 still hurts as bad as a 5-in naval shell
from today; sucks to be the APC or MICV that is hit by the 75mm or 90 mm HE
shell; and even worse to be the PBI hit by the 50 lb. stone from a terbuchet.
DS2 didn't divide all the type of ammo into modern and obsolete but rather the
apt reflection that modern tanks generally, but not always, will get better
tools to find the enemy, hence the FCS option.
Full auto only means that your buddies won't get your ammo when you die.
> J L Hilal <jlhilal@yahoo.com> wrote:
That depends. If your force is Inferior Tech level, then the only bonus you
would get would be if you are costing the vehicles with the
optional points system. Otherwise it lies in the scenario set-up. If,
on the other hand, you are a Standard Tech Force, and you equip your vehicles
with Antiquated Systems, then you will also realize a (small) savings in
capacity on each vehicle.
> Is there no option
Advancing your Tech Level is part of the Dirtside Campaign System (TBA), and
is beyond the scope of this post:)
However, you can always build more capability into your vehicle, just pay more
capacity (see below).
For reference, it took the USSR 2 years of intense effort to build a
B-29ski by reverse engineering three interned B-29's. The odds of you
reverse engineering a Martian Mk. 2465464 Fire Control System are nil.
> If so, great, but kind of invalidates the statement above. If not,
So MBT-2150 is Enhanced (d10), MBT-2120 has systems filling identical
capacity but produce d8, and MBT-2080 uses d6. IFV-2150 is also d10,
but APC-2150 has intentionally less capable (and smaller) d8 systems,
leaving extra capacity for troops. (see below)
> > In a revised construction system, I would like to see the capacity
Thanks
J
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, Thomas Westbrook wrote:
> My biggest gripe with DS2 is that the milita weapons are assumed to be
> better weapons than the POS M16 series.
So my take on this (as O.O. alluded to earlier) is that it's not just the
*weapons* involved. A good part of it is training and the ability to find
targets. Yes, I can take an M-1 Garand (a fine rifle!), but if you put
me out into the field with 4 or 5 of my friends, none of whom are trained
infantrymen (militia are we!), and face us off against a squad of
well-trained (line!) military professionals armed with shorter ranged
weapons (M-16s), I'm fairly confident that they'll:
a) find us before we find them b) be able to target us better than we can
target them (all of us over open sights) c) know how to coordinate fire and
select targets d) kick our stupid militia asses
Does my M-1 fire further and more accurately than an M-16? Yeah, if the
RIFLEs are being compared. But if you compare ME with a trained GRUNT, the
grunt WILL likley shoot MUCH better than me over greater ranges.
DSII abstracts a lot of things into ranges, targeting dice, and chits. I'm not
saying that it doesn't need a major overhaul, but it should at least be
respected for the things that are elegant and slick about it. I think that the
fact militia truly sucks compared to line infantry makes sense.
Just another opinion...
Thomas W said:
> Ihe human brain is an antiquated, inferior, obsolete system, yet we
And your other options are...?
> Also, the governments of the world say that the older technology like
Just bear in mind that the mature, efficient tech of today was at one
time unreliable, inefficient bleeding-edge tech (who needs matchlocks?
We have bows!).
> living near Norfolk VA
Good, a vict...er, I mean, opponent! I'm in Va Beach.
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 19:35:54 -0400, Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:
> Thomas W said:
Ask the Iraqi Army.
> >Also, the governments of the world say that the older technology like
Besides which, range is NOT rpt NOT the only consideration in a firefight. In
fact the vast majority of firefights take place at under 300m. In urban
terrain, drop that considerably. Closer to 50m in a lot of cases.
If you take a force armed with M1903 Springfields and have them take
on a force armed with M-4 carbines in wooded or urban terrain, the
guys with the modern guns will have a serious advantage.
Just my 2c worth.
I think you miss many points about the increased use of technology. Yes the
Navy got rid of backward writing boards. But now they can share tactical data
between all vessels and so each has a better picture of the engagement.
As far as the M-16 being a POS (your words), I think
that you are still talking about the original version. I think that you would
get much argument about the
current version esp. the M-4.
As for Antiquated being inferior in all aspects I
agree. The bolt action rifles of WW-II could shoot
further than the engagement ranges of todays battle rifles. So in certain
circumstances they will be better.
Bob Makowsky
> --- Thomas Westbrook <tom_westbrook@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What is meant by the tech levels. Ihe human brain
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 03:59:09 -0700 (PDT), Robert Makowsky
> <rmakowsky@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As for Antiquated being inferior in all aspects I
Ah, but for many of those applications we have superior technology in those
applications.
For instance, compare a bolt-action sniper rifle of WWII to a modern
weapon like the M-21. Better ammo, better optics, synthetic stock
which is less likely to be affected by weather, etc.
From: "Robert Makowsky" <rmakowsky@yahoo.com>
> I think you miss many points about the increased use
Actually, no. They're kept as backups in case the main system goes totally
Tango Uniform. Not with *all* the data, just enough
for self-defence. But even that makes the guys updating it
busier than the one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest.
> But now they can share tactical data
John,
Agree completely with you. Just throwing a bone back to the original post, in
that in some limited aspects differet weapons are better but overall the
reason that we use what we do today is based on practicality on the
battlefield.
Bob Makowsky
> --- John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 03:59:09 -0700 (PDT), Robert
Good point, thanks Alan.
Bob Makowsky
--- Alan and Carmel Brain <aebrain@webone.com.au>
wrote:
> From: "Robert Makowsky" <rmakowsky@yahoo.com>
I used to work in CIC. The backward writing isn't taught in school any more.
New ships (combatant New Tech) aren't even unified CICs. Go mushrooms!
> Robert Makowsky <rmakowsky@yahoo.com> wrote:
Good point, thanks Alan.
Bob Makowsky
--- Alan and Carmel Brain
wrote:
> From: "Robert Makowsky"
If anyother government contract a manufacturer was required to do four
full upgrades to make it work right, not some government golden child /
cow, it would be called corperate fraud.
Robert Makowsky <rmakowsky@yahoo.com> wrote:I think you miss many points about
the increased use of technology. Yes the Navy got rid of backward writing
boards. But now they can share tactical data between all vessels and so each
has a better picture of the engagement.
As far as the M-16 being a POS (your words), I think
that you are still talking about the original version. I think that you would
get much argument about the
current version esp. the M-4.
As for Antiquated being inferior in all aspects I
agree. The bolt action rifles of WW-II could shoot
further than the engagement ranges of todays battle rifles. So in certain
circumstances they will be better.
Bob Makowsky
> --- Thomas Westbrook wrote:
> What is meant by the tech levels. Ihe human brain
G'day guys,
A question for those more learned in military history than I. What battles can
you name where a technologically inferior force has beaten a force equipped
with technologically superior equpipment? I don't know much about modern
history but I have the impression (may be erroneously) that the Vietnamese vs
the French for one and the Soviets beating the Nazis for another probably fall
into that basket (at least for parts of the war). So for those cases where an
inferior army has come out, has it required particularly gifted leaders or
specific terrain cirumstances (like guerrilla fighting) to pull it off?
Cheers
Isandhlwana? I believe some of the warriors had rifles, but were in the main
spear carriers.
Native American pre-1900 victories are often cited, though I've seen
some discussion that some groups had repeaters while the US Army soldiers were
often equipted with single-shot rifles.
Are those TOO far in the past?
I'd suggest losing to inferior weapons requires inferior intel, so that you
are caught in disadvantages, whether terrain or numbers.
Also, the superiority can manifest itself in different ways. It's my
impression that the Russian tanks throughout WWII were superior in armor and
guns, but inferior in radios and optics. Add to that Stalin's decision to
destroy his officer corps, and advantages can be wasted.
Of course, those are the meanderings of a fuzzy-headed liberal mind.
The_Beast
From: <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au>
> A question for those more learned in military history than I. What
Isandhlwana, for a start.
http://www.rorkesdriftvc.com/isandhlwana/isandhlwana.htm
G'day,
> Isandhlwana? I believe some of the warriors had rifles, but were in
That was another I had in mind.
> Native American pre-1900 victories are often cited, though I've seen
Nope they're fine. I would like to know from any period of history.
> I'd suggest losing to inferior weapons requires inferior intel, so
Good thought.
> Also, the superiority can manifest itself in different ways. It's my
Also good points, how much inferior do you need in the mix to be inferior.
> Of course, those are the meanderings of a fuzzy-headed liberal mind.
As valid as any other;)
Have fun
On further reflection, I'll fall into Alan's camp. Arguably, the natives, in
all cases cited, used, to greater or lesser extent, similar weapons, but the
civilizations they faced would have to be considered as possessing 'higher
tech'.
The_Beast
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 14:41:59 +1000, beth.fulton@csiro.au
> <beth.fulton@csiro.au> wrote:
> A question for those more learned in military history than I. What
Sure. But in every single case the solution was for the technologically
superior force to make mindblowingly stupid decisions, generally one right
after the other. I pray the Lord gives me stupid, cowardly enemies (Iraqis
will do nicely), but it is not something I'm going to base military doctrine
on or accept as a rule.
> much about modern history but I have the impression (may be
The Vietnamese were equipped with SKS vs. the POS French battle rifle, and had
artillery from the Sovs and Chinese Communist, to include American artillery
captured in Korea, which the Vietnamese reloaded with ammunition captured from
the French and intended for their American artillery. Oh, and the French
fought like idiots. I know, let's set up a series of strongpoints in a valley!
And let's make them just far enough apart that they aren't mutually
supporting! And let's let the enemy drag artillery into the hills around them!
And not have sufficient mobile forces to relieve the siege or even go knock
out the guns! And we'll have not nearly enough guns of our own to perform
counterbattery!! That would be FUN!
> Nazis for another probably fall into that basket (at least for parts
Sovs beating Nazis? Entire books have been written on the stupidities the
Germans carried out. They violated nearly every principle of warfare known.
And while you could make an argument for the Sovs being somewhat lower tech,
it is hardly enough to be truly noticable.
> the war). So for those cases where an inferior army has come out, has
Yes.
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 15:08:28 +1000, Alan and Carmel Brain
> <aebrain@webone.com.au> wrote:
> Isandhlwana, for a start.
A clear case of a force that did everything wrong. Every single thing they
could.
> Little Big Horn
Little Big Horn is a questionable one--the 'high tech' force was armed
with single-shot breechloaders and the 'low tech' one largely armed
with repeating rifles. And the 'high tech' force made a deliberate (moronic)
decision to leave behind their most devestating weapons. A battery of gatling
guns would have made the outcome of that battle quite different. Even had the
Sioux eventually stuck around and won, it would have effectively destroyed the
tribe.
> I'd argue that Teutorburger Wald qualifies too
Swords is Swords, man. Higher level of organization does not mean higher
technological level.
From: "John Atkinson" <johnmatkinson@gmail.com>
> > I'd argue that Teutorburger Wald qualifies too
Armour? Artillery? Logistics? But especially armour.
> On Sunday 26 September 2004 08:19, John Atkinson wrote:
That's like saying Guns is Guns. There's a lot of difference between a
scramaseax and a long sword, especially when the armour worn by the two sides
is also unbalanced.
> On Sunday 26 September 2004 05:41, Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
I'd guess the US had even better equipment than the French, and were also
beaten.
Two that I've heard of recently:
Jacobites v Red Coats in 1746, at Prestonpans. Jacobites mostly had swords,
Red Coats had muskets, but the latter were seriously out manouevered (this was
recently on an episode of 'Battlefield Britain').
Then there's the battle at Verneuil in 1424, one of the many between the
French and English. The French had several thousand Milanese mercenary knights
in *really* heavy armour, which was totally impervious to English longbows.
After the first charge, the English lines were devastated. Unfortunately, the
Milanese decided to then loot the English baggage, the English regrouped and
attacked the main French forces. By the time the mercenaries realised what was
happening and returned to the field, it was all over and the English had won.
In this case, the main forces were probably reasonably balanced, it was the
Milanese which had much better equipment.
I'm with John in his assessment of Isandhlwana everything that could be done
wrong was done. One need look no further than a battle in the same campaign
Rorkes Drift. The Zulu had the added benefit of captured rifles from
Isandhlwana, yet were decisively defeated by a properly prepared defense and
well disciplined fires with good interior battle lines.
As for Little Bighorn, ( and Isandhlwana for that matter) you never divide
your force in enemy territory without knowing his whereabouts!
Armour? Artillery? Logistics? But especially armour.
Romans needed to hold their formations to achieve victory. Add to this the
German commander had been a Roman auxiliary trooper and planed his ambush
accordingly.
> --- Thomas Westbrook <tom_westbrook@yahoo.com> wrote:
This is a faulty analogy. In comparison to DS2 terms, these are two
separate weapon systems; one designed to fire a high-power round at
long ranges, while the other is intentionally designed to deliver a much
smaller round at shorter ranges but in larger volumes. A more
appropriate comparison would be between full-size rifles of differing
technology levels:
Part 1) the predecessors to the .30-'06 and .30-'03 rifles were the
.50-70 and .50-90. These were .50 cal. with 70 or 90 grains of black
powder, respectively. With the introduction of smokeless powder,
improved metallurgy, new breach-closure designs, and improved
manufacturing proccesses, the.30 cal. rifles were able to deliver the range
and power of the older.50 cal. black powder rifles.
Part 2) the invention of a new rifle action for the M-1 Garand allowed
in improvement in the firepower of the soldier at combat ranges. The Garand
gave little or no improvement over the M1903 at 1000m, but at
10-300m, two WW2 GI's with Garands had the firepower of an entire squad
of WW1 Doughboys with M1903 Springfields.
Part 3) if you want to look at assault rifles, then look at the evolution of
the Kalashnikov line. The modernizations in manufacturing capabilities allowed
significant changes to be made for the AKM in the late 1950s, and further
developments, including smaller ammunition and
the introduction of plastics, led to the AK-74.
Part 4) extenting this line into the (SF) future, one can postulate that EM
driven rifles might pack the range, accuracy, and penetrating power of a
modern.50 cal. M107 into a weapon equal in size and weight to a modern.30 cal.
rifle, and that an assault rifle built on the same principles could pack the
punch of modern.30 cal.'s into a weapon
comparable in size and weight to the M-16, SA-80, or AUG.
> Tech levels I generally think are an artificial divide on technology.
This time, the statement is just plain incorrect.
Taking your example of the naval 5", there is a line of steady
improvement of the weapons from pre-dreadnought, to WW1, to WW2, to
Cold War, to today. This includes improvements in propellent, shell design
(ballistics and shape), explosive filler (or now submunitions), metallurgy,
manufacturing techniques, operation, and firecontrol, as well as the basic
design.
The weapons have steadily lengthened from 25 calibers to 32, to 38, to 45, to
50, with corresponding increases in muzzle velocity and range. Fuses have
advanced from simple impact to delayed action. The timed fuze allowed for
limited DP use, and the introduction of the radar proximity fuze made it much
more effective. Advances in stabilization, radar direction, and computer
ballistics processing have increased the accuracy. Overall, a modern 5" gun
has the capabilities of a WW2 6" or 8" gun.
For the HE shell vs APC example, using an APC as the target is a straw man
arguement. A proper comparison would be against an actual armored target, like
a tank or armor plate target. The difference in the shell
between the WW2 M4's 75mm and the -E8's 76mm sounds small, but does not
take into acount that the 75 is a LVC, while the 76 is a HVC.
Additional, legitimate, comparisons show the same thing: Compare a modern
155mm howitzer with its WW2 ancestor. The modern weapon is made of improved
materials, using more advanced processes, uses more powerful propellants to
shoot new shells carrying more powerful fillers or new submunitions. Overall,
the weapon is more accurate, so that the same mission can be accomplished ith
fewer shells.
A recent example of what I am talking about was the US's next generation tank
program in the 1990's. Three designs of cannon were considered. First, an
improved version of the current 120mm, similar to the 55 caliber one being
introduced on some Leopard 2s. Second was a 140mm weapon, basicly scaled up
from the current 120mm. Finally,
there was a new binary-liquid propellant 120mm. In testing, the BLP
120mm was found capable of matching the conventional propellant 140mm in
kinetic penetrator performance, but the overall system, including propellant
and ammunition, was comparable in size and weight to the existing 120mm.
Overall, any camparison where only the effects of a hit on an unarmored target
are considered is intentionally misleading. Many of the important
considerations are what leads up to the hit, such as range, accuracy, and the
size and weight of the system, as well as the ability of the weapon to defeat
the armor (or shields, or hamster wheels, etc.) of the target.
> DS2 didn't divide all the type of ammo into
Again, false. NATO tanks of the 1980's, such as the Abrams, Challenger, or
Leopard 2, are significantly more capable than their
Soviet contemporaries, such as the T-80. This is due in most part to
the more advanced technology available to NATO. Computer processing,
electronics, materials, and manufacturing technologies all contribute to
making these NATO tanks more capable in every area important to
armored warfare on both a system-by-system and pound-for-pound basis.
NATO could pack more capabilities into the same box than the USSR could. Thus,
a higher Tech Level.
J
> --- Charles Lee <xarcht@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If anyother government contract a manufacturer was required to do
What do you call MS Windows?
:)
J
I agree with John A. on this, but there are even more factors than he
mentions.
> --- John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com> wrote:
And was outnumbered 25,000 to 1,350. While at Rorke's Drift the next day less
than 150 British held off 5,000 zulus.
> > Little Big Horn
And Custer faced 2,000 Sioux with less than 300 troopers.
There are other cases of US cav being trounced by Sioux, Cheyenne, Cherokee,
etc., but before ~1870, these were cases of being outnumbered 10:1 or more,
and after ~1870 were both outnumbered and the Sioux et al. had equipped
themselves with repeating rifles, while the US troopers
were limited to 1870 Springfield trap-door BLRs.
There are several notable cases pre ~1872 of swarms of indians being
driven off by a relatively small number of lever-action Henrys or
Spencers among the defenders.
> > I'd argue that Teutorburger Wald qualifies too
As with several other notable defeats of late Republic/early Empire
Romans, they were put in a situation where their strengths (open field vs.
infantry) were minimized or eliminated, and their weaknesses were exploited,
while commanded by politically appointed incompetants.
Now, if one side were iron-age and the other limited to bronze, copper,
or stone, then we could talk about technology differences. Can you say
"Conquistidors", "Aztecs", "Maya", and "Incas".:)
J
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
And almost always a crushing numerical superiority, like 10:1, 20:1, or more.
And not just in men, but also materiel (e.g. Shermans vs. Panthers and
Tigers).
For reference, late soviet (1980's) doctrine called for attacking forces to
have 1 artillery piece per 5 METERS of front. In DS2 terms, that would be 960
guns to support an attack down the length of a 4'x6' table.
:o
J
> --- Don M <dmaddox1@hot.rr.com> wrote:
Or numbers.
J
In a message dated 9/25/04 9:44:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> Beth.Fulton@csiro.au writes:
G'day guys,
A question for those more learned in military history than I. What battles can
you name where a technologically inferior force has beaten a force equipped
with technologically superior equpipment? I don't know much about modern
history but I have the impression (may be erroneously) that the Vietnamese vs
the French for one and the Soviets beating the Nazis for another probably fall
into that basket (at least for parts of the war). So for those cases where an
inferior army has come out, has it required particularly gifted leaders or
specific terrain cirumstances (like guerrilla fighting) to pull it off?
Cheers
Beth
Beth, there are specific examples in other replies but let's take a look at
your field -- some funny sea worms <grin> Marine Biology (which I know
a
smidgen about admittedly -- like how it's spelled).
You (in theory since I don't know CSIRO's budget) have access to modern
underwater gear for hands on research (both personal and remote control;)
computers for information storage, analysis and presentation, not to mention
contact
via Internet/e-mail with other scientists in your field; Book and
on-line
resources to find what work other people have done; and reliable vessels to
take you to research sites in the ocean.
Say you forsook all that to compete in research carnivorous mud puppies that
entice their prey by singing Elvis songs. You either ignored what the
technology told you or spun the results to meet you desires (That mud puppies
can actually sing and they like Elvis,) you did your research by interviews
with fishermen who thought the mud puppies were responsible for the drop in
their catches in the last few years (despite double the number of fishermen
from 15 to 30 boats in a small cove;) you failed to listen to other scientists
who where experts in the regions (some even had some knowledge of mud puppies
in similar coves), and had the fisherman draw sketches of the singing mud
puppies ("Oh, they are too smart to be caught Missy") and you rejected the
computer analysis of the data ("It has a piece of processed sand for it's
brain!")
Another researcher using a leaky catamaran; skin diving equipment; 1970's
underwater cameras; selected samples of Mud puppies caught, observed and
even a
few dissected ("Look, no vocal cords") and an ATARI 1040 ST was used to
process the data collected.
Odds are your opponent's report is going to be viewed more favorably
(immediately and later after other research confirms Mud Puppies don't sing
and those sealed speakers in the water were the source of the Elvis Music)
then yours. And with reason, you violated basic scientific tenets, ignored the
information the computer gave or could have given you, and judged the events
by what you wanted. In my field we do that level of analysis 'some times' when
we mirror our cultural values in another culture (India in the last Atomic
test, Saddam just before Kuwait) among other miscues.
High tech used poorly or basic reality ignored can let the smart low tech
opponent give you a big black eye. Or worse..,
Gracias,
> At 10:34 AM +0100 9/26/04, Samuel Penn wrote:
The US was not beaten Militarily. It left due to the overall strategic goals
of political influence at home being affected by the war and that affected the
Strategic Military Decision making. The US never lost any major engagements
with the NVA or the VC. In fact, the US usually clobbered the NVA or VC.
> And while you could make an argument for the Sovs
Soviet T34's certianly would beat Pzkw III's, and probably about slightly
ahead of IV's, if both sides are equally well trained and using good doctrine.
> On Sunday 26 September 2004 16:39, Ryan Gill wrote:
IOW, the VC were willing/able to keep on fighting until the US
decided that it wasn't worth it and went home. i.e., the US lost.
> And almost always a crushing numerical superiority, like 10:1, 20:1,
eg Abyssians vs Italians, Battle of Adowa, 1896. 17K Italians in four brigades
moved forward out of their prepared positions to offer battle
to what they believed were 30K Ethiopians--there were actually about
100K warriors there. One brigade was ordered to move to a position
next to a specific hill--but the map was mismarked and the native
guides took them to the hill with the right name, rather than the hill the
general intended; another brigade followed the wrong canyon. When he lost
contact with two brigades, the Italian general couldn't make up his mind what
to do, and the result was that the Italians were defeated in detail, losing
about half their men.
From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
> Soviet T34's certianly would beat Pzkw III's, and probably about
And the Russians had radios, perhaps a dedicated gunner, etc., etc.,
etc....
Damo
Ryan,
Thank you. We too often here how the US was beat in Vietnam. You're right, we
were not beat, we left.
Mike
[quoted original message omitted]
Sam Penn said:
> IOW, the VC were willing/able to keep on fighting until the US
I took Beth's question to mean a low-tech army beating a high-tech one
*in battle*, which didn't happen in Nam.
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 17:08:01 +0100, Samuel Penn
> <sam@bifrost.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > The US was not beaten Militarily. It left due to
Point of Fact: The "Viet Cong" (derogatory term for the National Liberation
Front) were destroyed in 1968 during the catastrophic Tet Offensive.
The PAVN (AKA NVA) remained in the field, though utterly incapable of
defeating the United States.
Due to political problems at home largely caused by pro-Communist
agitators, the US withdrew from Vietnam.
And the PAVN ran T-55s over the ARVN. Hardly a case of inferior
technology prevailing on the battlefield.
You could make the argument that the US lost Vietnam. More correctly, the
United States never managed to turn military victory into political gains that
would secure a favorable peace. At no time did
the PAVN/NLF forces meet American troops in the field and beat them in
a fight.
> On Sunday 26 September 2004 17:40, Laserlight wrote:
Though if you know that you're outclassed, the very last thing you want to do
is engage in a open battle with your opponent. It's not clear from the
original question, but she did mention guerilla warfare as a possibility,
which is generally a series of fights rather than a single battle.
> On Sunday 26 September 2004 17:49, John Atkinson wrote:
I've never seen anyone argue otherwise before.
> More correctly,
Yep, though I'd say that if you can't get political gains, then the victory is
pretty pointless (though not as bad as a military defeat). Politics is
generally why people get into a war in the first place.
> At 6:49 PM +0200 9/26/04, John Atkinson wrote:
Anybattle they engaged in resulted in their trying to Hug US forces and
getting their clocks cleaned.
> Due to political problems at home largely caused by pro-Communist
Just like some politicians now. They're using national security interest and
their opposition to it for personal aggrandizement. That crap didn't wash
during WWII after Pearl.
> And the PAVN ran T-55s over the ARVN. Hardly a case of inferior
And where US forces were still present in any
numbers, the T-55s were so much grist for the
mills of US Airpower.
> You could make the argument that the US lost Vietnam. More correctly,
Aside from the odd tiny squad on squad type ambush. Nothing of substance on
the larger local or regional tactical picture.
My interpretation of the DS2 rules is that both are comparable systems, i.e.
both are rifles and in DS2 terms the older weapon system is given to the
militia [National Guard, etc.] even though in reality some (not all) NG units
have better gear and, to a degree, training than the regular forces.
Also, the evolution of black powder to smokeless powder is IMO an increase in
tech level but the changing of doctrine from killing enemy soldiers to only
wounding them, therefore we use a smaller bullet, is
IMO NOT a change in tech level as both rounds are cased or case-less
chemically propelled lead bullets REGARDLESS of size. Combat ranges
when from 50-m to 1000-m (During the US civil War) down to 300-m in WW2
and down to 50-m in Vietnam. An EM propelled bullet aka Gauss round, or
gyro-jet or particle weapon would be an increase in technology.
We still use shells manufactured in WW2 for use in the 5-in guns, at
least we did in the late 90's. The Navy was even proud that the US had rounds
in their inventory over 50 yrs old and still firing. The M2 machine gun is the
same design as the US had in WW2, firing the same
round from WW2! And, the M60 GPMG is an Americanized Wermacht MG-34 or
42 (I don't remenber which).
THE POINT I was trying to make, though evidently not good enough, is that tech
levels are largely subject to interpretation by different people. For example
GURPS uses chronological dating for increase in tech level, though IMO the
cased bullet from the 1930's is generally the same as the cased bullet from
today and performs in the same manner and expectations. Generally speaking by
my interpretation of tech level there is no increase in tech level, though by
the rules, there is a 2 tech level increase. We can always examples that don't
fit the mold.
I can debate the quality of US vs European vs Russian tanks, because I
generally don't agree with your assessment and will leave it at that.
Tom
> J L Hilal <jlhilal@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Thomas Westbrook wrote:
This is a faulty analogy. In comparison to DS2 terms, these are two
separate weapon systems; one designed to fire a high-power round at
long ranges, while the other is intentionally designed to deliver a much
smaller round at shorter ranges but in larger volumes. A more
appropriate comparison would be between full-size rifles of differing
technology levels:
Part 1) the predecessors to the .30-'06 and .30-'03 rifles were the
.50-70 and .50-90. These were .50 cal. with 70 or 90 grains of black
powder, respectively. With the introduction of smokeless powder,
improved metallurgy, new breach-closure designs, and improved
manufacturing proccesses, the.30 cal. rifles were able to deliver the range
and power of the older.50 cal. black powder rifles.
Part 2) the invention of a new rifle action for the M-1 Garand allowed
in improvement in the firepower of the soldier at combat ranges. The Garand
gave little or no improvement over the M1903 at 1000m, but at
10-300m, two WW2 GI's with Garands had the firepower of an entire squad
of WW1 Doughboys with M1903 Springfields.
Part 3) if you want to look at assault rifles, then look at the evolution of
the Kalashnikov line. The modernizations in manufacturing capabilities allowed
significant changes to be made for the AKM in the late 1950s, and further
developments, including smaller ammunition and
the introduction of plastics, led to the AK-74.
Part 4) extenting this line into the (SF) future, one can postulate that EM
driven rifles might pack the range, accuracy, and penetrating power of a
modern.50 cal. M107 into a weapon equal in size and weight to a modern.30 cal.
rifle, and that an assault rifle built on the same principles could pack the
punch of modern.30 cal.'s into a weapon
comparable in size and weight to the M-16, SA-80, or AUG.
> Tech levels I generally think are an artificial divide on technology.
This time, the statement is just plain incorrect.
Taking your example of the naval 5", there is a line of steady
improvement of the weapons from pre-dreadnought, to WW1, to WW2, to
Cold War, to today. This includes improvements in propellent, shell design
(ballistics and shape), explosive filler (or now submunitions), metallurgy,
manufacturing techniques, operation, and firecontrol, as well as the basic
design.
The weapons have steadily lengthened from 25 calibers to 32, to 38, to 45, to
50, with corresponding increases in muzzle velocity and range. Fuses have
advanced from simple impact to delayed action. The timed fuze allowed for
limited DP use, and the introduction of the radar proximity fuze made it much
more effective. Advances in stabilization, radar direction, and computer
ballistics processing have increased the accuracy. Overall, a modern 5" gun
has the capabilities of a WW2 6" or 8" gun.
For the HE shell vs APC example, using an APC as the target is a straw man
arguement. A proper comparison would be against an actual armored target, like
a tank or armor plate target. The difference in the shell
between the WW2 M4's 75mm and the -E8's 76mm sounds small, but does not
take into acount that the 75 is a LVC, while the 76 is a HVC.
Additional, legitimate, comparisons show the same thing: Compare a modern
155mm howitzer with its WW2 ancestor. The modern weapon is made of improved
materials, using more advanced processes, uses more powerful propellants to
shoot new shells carrying more powerful fillers or new submunitions. Overall,
the weapon is more accurate, so that the same mission can be accomplished ith
fewer shells.
A recent example of what I am talking about was the US's next generation tank
program in the 1990's. Three designs of cannon were considered. First, an
improved version of the current 120mm, similar to the 55 caliber one being
introduced on some Leopard 2s. Second was a 140mm weapon, basicly scaled up
from the current 120mm. Finally,
there was a new binary-liquid propellant 120mm. In testing, the BLP
120mm was found capable of matching the conventional propellant 140mm in
kinetic penetrator performance, but the overall system, including propellant
and ammunition, was comparable in size and weight to the existing 120mm.
Overall, any camparison where only the effects of a hit on an unarmored target
are considered is intentionally misleading. Many of the important
considerations are what leads up to the hit, such as range, accuracy, and the
size and weight of the system, as well as the ability of the weapon to defeat
the armor (or shields, or hamster wheels, etc.) of the target.
> DS2 didn't divide all the type of ammo into
Again, false. NATO tanks of the 1980's, such as the Abrams, Challenger, or
Leopard 2, are significantly more capable than their
Soviet contemporaries, such as the T-80. This is due in most part to
the more advanced technology available to NATO. Computer processing,
electronics, materials, and manufacturing technologies all contribute to
making these NATO tanks more capable in every area important to
armored warfare on both a system-by-system and pound-for-pound basis.
NATO could pack more capabilities into the same box than the USSR could. Thus,
a higher Tech Level.
J
IMO I would say it is rather the defense contractors and the politicians
rather than any practicality by the military.
Robert Makowsky <rmakowsky@yahoo.com> wrote:John,
Agree completely with you. Just throwing a bone back to the original post, in
that in some limited aspects differet weapons are better but overall the
reason that we use what we do today is based on practicality on the
battlefield.
Bob Makowsky
> --- John Atkinson wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 03:59:09 -0700 (PDT), Robert
G'day,
> I'm with John in his assessment of Isandhlwana everything that
> From the first hand accounts I've read of that one, one more Zulu
Cheers
Beth said:
> From the first hand accounts I've read of [Rorke's Drift], one more
You can say that about *lots* of battles. That's why a blind game is much
different than a normal game. Neither side knows just how close to breaking
the other side is, and the loser usually has enough force to win, if he just
kept fighting a little longer.
G'day Glenn,
1) Under trends in government spending on science in Australia, I'm likely to
be the one leaky catamaran;) and 2) You wold be terrified if you knew how
close to the mark your description of fisheries science in certain countries
really was;)
More seriously though one of the many reasons I asked the question about
inferior tipping a superior tech force is because I have consistently
found that having money/tech to throw at a problem in my field at least
means you go for the wrong resolution decide you can't do it toss it in and
then are astounded when someone with less money and resources thought
laterally and actually did pull it off. This us a situation we have been in a
lot, where US and European scientists have told us we must be lying because
they coudn't do it at all so how could we on
1/10000th (if that) of the budget.
Cheers
G'day,
> You can say that about *lots* of battles. That's why a blind game is
On a side note (and as an observation not trying to start a flame war about
the pros and cons of different game designs) this is something I have seen in
Piquet and one of the reasons I like the game so much.
Cheers
G'day guys,
Not trying to quash intelligent adult debate here, but I really didn't want to
raise list tension by sparking an argument about Vietnam (which is why I have
not asked the same question many times in the past, but this time curiosity
got the better of my cautious side). How about we say that way all realise
that Vietnam was a complex situation and leave it that. I did mention guerilla
warfare but was more interested in specific battles rather than campaigns...
the politics of which are a bit beyond my adled brain;)
Thanks for all the examples guys
The Tet offensive was a large scale battle. Ten Viet Cong regiments hit our
lines and hurt us bad before pulling back with the core leaders in good order.
Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:At 6:49 PM +0200 9/26/04, John
> Atkinson wrote:
Anybattle they engaged in resulted in their trying to Hug US forces and
getting their clocks cleaned.
> Due to political problems at home largely caused by pro-Communist
Just like some politicians now. They're using national security interest and
their opposition to it for personal aggrandizement. That crap didn't wash
during WWII after Pearl.
> And the PAVN ran T-55s over the ARVN. Hardly a case of inferior
And where US forces were still present in any
numbers, the T-55s were so much grist for the
mills of US Airpower.
> You could make the argument that the US lost Vietnam. More correctly,
Aside from the odd tiny squad on squad type ambush. Nothing of substance on
the larger local or regional tactical picture.
What on Earth are you smoking? Please read a non-comic-book history
of the Vietnam War before talking with the grownups.
Has anyone done a good Sci-fi version of Piquet?
I really like Piquet, but I really didn't like the WWII version.
Another interesting example of a tech inferior force winning is Napoleonic
naval war between Britan and France. For much of it, the French had better
ship designs (faster, heavier guns, etc.), but less experienced crews and
officers.
I don't know if anyone has read it, but the book Guns, Germs and Steel has an
excelent account of the effects of technology on combat between the Spanish
and the Inca's. (and also the effects of being attacked by something you
really just don't understand).
-Adrian
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
> G'day,
G'day,
> Has anyone done a good Sci-fi version of Piquet?
Nothing published but a few homegrown conversions kick about I think.
Grunt-game wise Derek and I have had a few ideas but while fun they're
too embryonic to hand over to anyone else as yet.
> I don't know if anyone has read it, but the book Guns,
I've read the book and while he makes a few valid points his rather lopsided
discussion of bioregionalisation and then the ignorance displayed over the
technologies and culture possessed by the Australian aboriginals and
Polynesian peoples is such that I have always been wary (maybe unjustifably)
of the accuracy of other sections of his book.
Cheers
> At 10:12 PM -0700 9/26/04, Don M wrote:
That's exactly what I've read and seen of every historical show, book or
analysis of the Tet Offensive. The VC insurgents were effectively destroyed by
Tet and every single event. They scored a political win with their breaching
of the Embassy Compound but even then managed to not make any serious gains
and were surrounded. Their efforts during Tet did not accomplish the main
tactical or strategic goals they intended (ie a populist uprising against the
US and the RVN government). This is what John and I have espoused but Charles
Lee is stating the opposite. God, I hope that's not whats being tought now
days in the Public Schools. Because if it is, I fear what they're teaching
about WWII.
What on Earth are you smoking? Please read a non-comic-book history
of the Vietnam War before talking with the grownups.
John
News to me, I've read that the VC ceased being a combat effective force after
Tet and had to be increasing replaced by NVA regulars.
This is what John and I have espoused but Charles Lee is stating the opposite.
God, I hope that's not whets being taught now days in the Public Schools.
Because if it is, I fear what they're teaching about WWII.
The fall really only happened due to Watergate, I think a few B52 strikes on
the NVA advance might have changed things a bit.......So much for our guaranty
to an allied nation...The real tragedy of that war.
> --- Thomas Westbrook <tom_westbrook@yahoo.com> wrote:
I think that we are talking around two different ideas. If you go back
and re-read my original post of 21 Sept 2004, and in particular points
#5 and #8, I think you will see that.
First, in #5, I am talking about Tech Levels for SYSTEMS, i.e. places where
DS2 already use System Quality, such as GMS, FCS, etc.. In this point I am
advocating expanding the diversity of current System Quality levels. I also
proposed to have a sliding scale of Capacity costs for vehicular systems in
relation to both their actual System Quality and the Tech capabilities of the
originating force.
Second, in #8, I propose applying these tech levels to VEHICULAR WEAPONS. The
example I offer is pretty clear on this. Nowhere did I mention infantry
weapons nor did I address anything about Line vs. Militia infantry.
Thus, when you began comparing .30 cal. bolt-action and SA rifles to
small caliber assault rifles, I related it to the DS2 vehicular weapon rules.
If you want to talk about how to grade modern US forces as DS2 infantry, fine.
I have not seen USAR or USNG equipped with the weapons that you discribe in
the last 25 years. They are all equipped with
M16-family small arms. In DS2 terms, they would be graded the same as
USA regulars, but with a Quality of Green or Regular rather than Regular or
Veteran, representing their less constant training. DS2 is pretty clear that
"line" and "militia" is related to the equipment of the force, not the
nomenclature a particular government uses.
> Also, the evolution of black powder to smokeless powder is IMO an
And that is what I said. That small-caliber assault rifles are a
different weapon system type if considered in terms of DS2 vehicular weapons.
> Combat ranges when from 50-m to 1000-m (During the US civil War) down
And, I said that too.
> We still use shells manufactured in WW2 for use in the 5-in guns, at
No, we don't. That is just plain false. I challenge you to site your source.
The reason that that is false is that munitions of all types have a
shelf-life of only 20-30 years. Anything lasting longer than that is
destroyed as a matter of policy. The reason for this is that the chemicals in
propellents and explosives degrade over time. Some become inert, and thus
useless; others become unstable, subject to detonation in high ambient heat or
humidity or from rough handling. In particular, some naval propellent cordites
are prone to sweat nitroglyceryn and the shell fillers become prone to
detonations from jarring or tropical climate heat.
> The M2 machine gun is the same design as the US had in WW2, firing
The same design, yes. Actual 1940's ammunition, no.
In point of fact, the M2HB was originally the M-1921. That's closer to
WW1, not WW2, and even then it is basically a scaled up M1917/M1919 .30
cal..
> And, the M60 GPMG is an Americanized Wermacht MG-34 or 42 (I don't
As is the current German MG3. <shrug>
> THE POINT I was trying to make, though evidently not good enough, is
I don't know the GURPS system, so I can't comment.
> I can debate the quality of US vs European vs Russian tanks, because
Then you need to do some more research. And I did not compare US to European
as you imply. I placed them in the same category and compared the lot to the
Soviets. Additionally, I specifically limited it to
designs that entered service in the late 1970s/early 1980s and all
successors, particularly the Abrams, Challenger, and Leopard 2. The exception
to this is the Leclerc, as I do not know whether it uses Chobham or not.
J
> G'day,
I'm pretty sure that the idea that they had captured rifles from Isandlhwana
is a myth as well. The force that attacked Rourkes Drift did not take part in
the other battle and would not have been able to get weapons from it. They
were using older rifles that the Zulu's already had in some (small) numbers.
> --- Don M <dmaddox1@hot.rr.com> wrote:
I think John A. is refering to Charles Lee's assertion that:
" The Tet offensive was a large scale battle. Ten Viet Cong regiments hit our
lines and hurt us bad before pulling back with the core leaders in good
order."
When in actuality, there were no "lines" to be hit, but rather it was a
general attack on over 100 cities and US and ARVN units and installations all
across the south by both VC and NVA regulars, and in the end the VC took so
many casualties that they were ineffective for the rest of the conflict.
Although it was presented in the US press as a disaster, it did little
military damage to US forces, most of the damage to US forces being political
and PR.
J