Now that I read what you wrote and re-read the manual, I have to retract
my agreement with you. The manual does not say laying the axis of fire along
the axis of the column, it says laying the beaten zone along the column. As I
said before, it further defines the beaten zone as where the shots forming the
come of dispersion strike. The cone of dispersion is defined as "A conical
shaped pattern formed by the trajectories of a group of shots fired from the
same weapon with the same sight setting." Now, if I understand the sight
setting properly, that means where the weapon is when it fires. Therefore, the
wider you swing your barrel from side to side, the wider your cone of
dispersion, and hence the longer your beaten zone. Now, if you're
off to one side of a column of enemy soldiers/vehicles, and you swing
your barrel (whether a personal weapon, a SAW on a tripod, or a RFAC in a
turret) along that column as you fire, the axis of that column corresponds
with your beaten zone, and is therefore coming under Enfilade fire. That was
my point, and was the reason I was arguing that using the proposed strafing
rules for fire from ground units need not apply only to firing units in direct
line with the column being attacked. This is especially true against
harder targets, since carry-through of fire is not that effective
against
thick-skinned vehicles. you want to be off to one side where you can
fire along the entire column. Mind you, in DS II, given the ground scale, the
beaten zone should not be very long-- say 1 inch per class of weapon,
maybe even less, but still, it's an idea...
Brian Bilderback
"The Irish are the only race of people on Earth for which psychoanalysis is of
no use."
- S. Freud
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Glover, Owen" <oglover@museum.vic.gov.au>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: "'gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU'" <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: RE: RFACS
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 17:04:59 +1000
Hi Brian,
Artillery fire is different to small arms fire. As the good manual states,
Enfilade fire is laying the axis of fire on the long axis of a target. Why
enfilade? Because the passage of rounds will likely strike a subsequent body
if it misses (sometimes even if it hits!) a previous body. Actually quite
different to "walking" artillery/mortar fire along a target.
Cheers,
Owen G
> -----Original Message-----
Each
> element in column draws chits according to weapon class.
Hi Brian,
What you have actually done is extrapolated what the manual has defined by the
comment "Therefore, the wider you swing your barrel from side to side, the
wider your cone of dispersion, and hence the longer your beaten
zone....."
The beaten zone is the pattern a burst of fire lays down on a fixed bearing
and elevation....if you move the weapon then you move the beaten
zone....
An artillery Beaten Zone is the area in which rounds from a Battery or Gun
Section will fall. Each gun actually lays on a slightly different bearing and
elevation to deliver a set beaten zone. These are templated and a
Battery CP allocates Guns separate bearings/elevations depending on the
target description to acheive specific target coverage. Nothing comparable
really to effect an enfilade.
To give you some ideas of Beaten Zones for the MAG58(M60 is very similar);
these figures are based on bursts of 20 rounds:
500m - 1mx87m
1000m - 2mx79m
1500m - 3mx71m
2000m - 4mx62m
2500m - 5mx54m
3000m - 6mx46m this is considered to Max Eff Range for the weapon.
Moving the weapons bearing (azimuth) during firing doesn't improve it's beaten
zone. Quite the contrary; it decreases it's effectiveness.
So you are still most effective placing weapons at the long end of the target
regardless of weapon type.
[Lecture Mode Off] :-)
Cheers,
Owen G
> -----Original Message-----
Just filling in the blanks:
All from a fixed mount of course, ie tripod mounted, sandbagged and locked in
place.
Just that everyone here is'nt from a military background and might not know
what were talking about.
If you started talking about enfilade fire from a defilade position I would
now what you were talking about but millions (and the rest) wouldn't.
Buck
Good point... and I do stand corrected. I reread, and I was wrong all along.
It's been known to happen.
Brian Bilderback
"The Irish are the only race of people on Earth for which psychoanalysis is of
no use."
- S. Freud
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Geoffery R" <geofferyr@hotmail.com>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: RE: Ummm... actually...
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 17:21:52 PST
Just filling in the blanks:
All from a fixed mount of course, ie tripod mounted, sandbagged and locked in
place.
Just that everyone here is'nt from a military background and might not know
what were talking about.
If you started talking about enfilade fire from a defilade position I would
now what you were talking about but millions (and the rest) wouldn't.
Buck
But I like the idea of anyone considering the effects of Enfilade Fire.....it
is something that is intrinsic to good use of any rapid fire weapon on the
battlefield today! And quite likely in the future. I think the only game
system I've seen that came close to affording it good practice was ASL. The
current result is that most people will end up using machine guns as a frontal
fire weapon which is a total misuse and abuse of the weapon
:-(
Cheers,
Owen G
> -----Original Message-----
Why, thank you... you made me feel like much less the fool. And I agree that
the rules should find a way of reflecting the high ROF of such weapons.
I think, and you'll pardon me if this is rambling or self-apparent or
old news, or if my inebriated state is at all revealed(My wife had to be out
of town for valentines day, I have found solace in the arms of Messrs.
Bacardi), That it is important to consider the specific attributes of any
weapon or system before employing it for a given situation.
I have made the mistake, quite often in the past, of trying to develop tactics
around a specific weapon or system of weapons. Then the epiphany came. It
started with a comment by Jerry Pournelle in one of his Sparta
novels that strategy dictates tactics. From this I have begun to extrapolated
that as tactics descend from strategy, so weapons design must serve tactics.
I suppose this is most likely the main reason that the ancient Greek word for
weapon (Hoplon) is derived from the word for tool. If we again extrapolate
(Hell, others accused me of it, and rightly so, I might as well do a lot of
it) from a definition of a tool as an implement for the application of force
to accomplish a specific task or end result, then we see that a weapon is a
tool to bring about a specific tactical end.
Whether that be a very specialized tactic, like the death of an enemy soldier
or Tank, or a more generalized tactic, like the taking of hill 1234,
the basic truth remains - A weapon is a means, not an end. Thus, a
commander must consider the tactical situation, and employ the weapons he has
at his disposal to accomplish the tactical ends as efficiently as possible.
Just as you would never use a shovel to break rock when you have a sledge
hammer, or use that same sledge hammer to stir your stew, so it behooves (I've
always wanted to use that word in a real conversation) the commander to
consider the strengths and weaknesses of each weapon at his disposal and
deploy them in such a manner as to conceal the weaknesses and exploit the
stengths.
That is why I heartily agree that the rules should somehow allow for such
considerations - high rate of fire weapons vs slower weapons with
greater penetrative power, etc. As it stands, enfilade fire is not a factor,
even though as you've pointed out, it's one of the most effective uses of
rapid fire weaponry.
Brian Bilderback
"The Irish are the only race of people on Earth for which psychoanalysis is of
no use."
- S. Freud
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Glover, Owen" <oglover@museum.vic.gov.au>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: "'gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU'" <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: RE: Ummm... actually...
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:13:25 +1000
But I like the idea of anyone considering the effects of Enfilade Fire.....it
is something that is intrinsic to good use of any rapid fire weapon on the
battlefield today! And quite likely in the future. I think the only game
system I've seen that came close to affording it good practice was ASL. The
current result is that most people will end up using machine guns as a frontal
fire weapon which is a total misuse and abuse of the weapon
:-(
Cheers,
Owen G
It's OK, Brian's had a bit too much Bacardi.