On Mon, 29 Jun 1998 17:08:47 -0500 Thomas Barclay
> <Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca> writes:
Or just to make the grav drive REAL efficient. The mine goes off, and all
of a sudden that little bit of anti-gravity force is a whole lot of
anti-gravity thrust. Then you have a grav tank in orbit. Or, at least
really, really high up. And when the effects of the mine wear off, well, tanks
usually don't come with parachutes.
> I think the point (if you will) was about whether infantry without
I suppose. I concede that modern aircraft are probably pretty close to
invulnerable to attack from infantry that's too much below TL. Afghan
guerilla's only managed to harm Soviet aircraft when they started gettingthe
CIA supplied Stingers. Comperable TL I should think. But what about civil war
infantry fighting Hinds? I don't know that the infantry could do much to the
Hinds. But then, they can't get anywhere near it.
As for tanks, look at the extreme. What would a Roman legion do to stop
an M1? Consider it a one-on-one duel. Well, I imagine the tank would
kill an awful lot of Romans. Possibly it would get bogged down in all the
bodies? :-) Is it concievable that enough Romans piling on the tank
could manage to stick a log in its tracks? I'm not so sure, but this is sort
of
the thing we want to think about. Then shift it a few TL--both sides.
Now you've got grav tanks and WW2 infantry, say.
At the very least, it could be an interesting discussion.
Re: dealing with Grav tanks...
I'm reminded of my FAVORITE SCi-Fi flicks (well, one of them at least)
called Earth Vs. the Flying Saucers. The Saucers were impervious to all fire,
so Scientists (baackthen they were always saving the world instead of f***ing
it up), developed a ray that nullified the gravity propulsions systems of
their flying saucers. This caused them to crash..unfortunately they always
seemed to crash into spots like the white house, congress, etc etc, (hmmm
maybe that's not such a bad idea
afterall....)
Anyway, that would be a pretty neat weapon. A mobility kill at least, (maybe
in mine form).
> At 09:13 02/07/98 -0700, you wrote:
SNIP
> Los
I remember that one- in the middle of the climactic battle, the hero
risked his life to get to a radio truck and broadcast the vital message, "Keep
firing at flying saucers!"...
Rob
> You wrote:
> I suppose. I concede that modern aircraft are probably pretty close to
Uh... The Afghans were plinking Hinds with captured Strelas long before the
CIA got into the act. The problem was they didn't have Strelas in *quantity*
since you have to fire a couple off to get good odds of getting a hit.
> As for tanks, look at the extreme. What would a Roman legion do to
Burn the fuel truck.
> the thing we want to think about. Then shift it a few TL--both sides.
Now >you've got grav tanks and WW2 infantry, say.
Freak shot into the turret ring with a Panzerfaust. But a 17lbr gun with APDS
can ruin someone's day through the rear...
Note: You might have lower-tech weapons with rounds of High-tech ammo.
While it might not be profitable or feasable to import grav tanks in
quantity, it might well be feasable to import higher-tech ammo. i.e.
that 17lbr gun might be firing APFSDSSD (the last two indicating
Super-dense, insert SFional weapon material of your choice here).
Los spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> The company/plt leaders MK IV helmet's command electronics has a
That's "aircraft action" in the Canadian Forces. I thought the lead was up to
two football fields (200m). But the problem is when you get an aircraft on a
popup or coming in low and supersonic, they are there before you see or hear
(in the case of supersonic) them coming.... and so is their ordinance.... I
wouldn't rely on this
drill. I'd shoot at choppers with some hopes but fast movers - the
best I'd imagine is you shake up the pilots aim. If you get an effective hit,
you've got a horseshoe up your butt.
> Now the MK IVa helmet has target prediction code built in for greeater
As I recall this drill though, the NCO had to be "on the bounce" or it'd all
be over before he was aware of the impending situation. On billiard table
plains, this might be feasible. In hills or forest, very difficult to execute
well.
But, OTOH, your other option as infantry with no integral AA is to sit there
and wait to get skragged.... so you may as well try....
Tom.
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay Software Specialist Police Communications Systems Software
Kinetics Ltd. 66 Iber Road, Stittsville Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 4009
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Software Kinetics' Web Page:
http://www.sofkin.ca
SKL Daemons Softball Web Page:
http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/softhp.htm
**************************************************/
A great example of high/low tech combat is Harry Turtledove's Worldwar
series; basically, it's an alternate history novel on what would have happened
if a technologically advanced conquest fleet had shown up during WWII. For the
most part, however, the humans would have gotten pasted if it wasn't for the
speed at which they managed to adapt to the enemies' technology and their
sheer numbers they were able to throw against a finite amount of high tech
enemies.
Take care,
RE: Air defense by infantry units.
Very low flying AC (I'm talking about within small arms range) still run a
risk (though not a huge one if you are a fast mover, a bigger one if
your a helo,/grav vehicle) of getting hit. (You only have to scare the
pilot) What I was thinking about in the future was this...
The company/plt leaders MK IV helmet's command electronics has a
datalink option. He designates a atrget point which all troops under their
command see in his HUD. They aim towards it and fire at the spot where the
aircraft is going to fly through. (BTW in real world small arms air defense
this is how it's done. the company piucks a spot 100m
or more ahead of the enemy a/c and fills it full of lead, then lets the
enemy ac fly through it.)
Now the MK IVa helmet has target prediction code built in for greeater
accuracy. The troopies just marry up the dot in their HUDs with the laser
targetting reticle and let fly.
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> But, OTOH, your other option as infantry with no integral AA is to
Exactly.....
I would like to bring up a point that often gets overlooked. There are 3 types
of rounds that kill vehicles(or bunkers) not 2. The two most often mentioned
here are kenetic rounds (sabot penetrators) which are high velocity javelins
to get through the armor.
The next is the HEAT round - High Explosive Anti-Tank which is a
shaped charge explosive which burns a hole through the armor.
The 3rd and not mentioned is the HESH round - High Explosive Squash
Head. This round doesn't expect to penetrate. What it does is impact on the
surface of the armor like soft bread dough and spread out to a 6 to 12 inch
circle (take a melon, cut it in half and put the flat side on the armor) at
which point it explodes. What happens is the armor surface acts like a big
drum or bell that has been hit by the biggest clapper or drum stick you ever
saw and flexes very very sharply. One of the things that can happen is the
inside surface of the armor can break off and become shrapnel ( this is called
spalling.). Another is that anything in contact with that surface will get all
that energy transferred to it and go flying off like a bullet (does wonders
for the electronic boxes fastened to inside walls of a tank). Do you remember
those toys where there is a set of steel bearings hung on strings; pick up the
end bearing and drop it and the bearing on the opposite end flies off? Well
that's what happens here. The defenses against this are spaced armor and anti
spalling shields inside vehicles but given a big enough bang........ By the
way this is what they are talking about when those WWI and WWII people mention
"sticky bombs." They do even better against concrete and other block house
substances. I've seen several rifle launched HESH weapons in my reading(HESH
round need to be low velocity, otherwise they'd splatter) of modern and
current weapon inventories. These are not very high tech except for the
explosive and are very effective against armor or bunkers. In the 25th Century
I wonder how effective they would be if you used
Cataclysmite-V ???
Tom Hughes
On Thu, 2 Jul 1998 12:41:02 -0500 (CDT) jatkins6@ix.netcom.com (John
> Atkinson) writes:
In a message dated 98-07-02 13:49:50 EDT, you write:
<< >I suppose. I concede that modern aircraft are probably pretty close to
> invulnerable to attack from infantry that's too much below TL. Afghan
Uh... The Afghans were plinking Hinds with captured Strelas long before the
CIA got into the act. The problem was they didn't have Strelas in *quantity*
since you have to fire a couple off to get good
odds of getting a hit. >>
There are also some accounts early in the conflict of Afghans taking out Hinds
with rocks. The Soviets were flying low level through mountain passes and the
Afghans would toss rocks off higher levels and damage the rotors. It may not
really apply here, but it is something else to think about.
> tom411@juno.com (Thomas E Hughes) wrote:
> I would like to bring up a point that often gets overlooked. There are
[...]
> The 3rd and not mentioned is the HESH round - High Explosive Squash
[...]
> By the way this is what they are talking about when those WWI and
I thought the WWI / WWII "sticky bomb" wasn't a HESH round, but a 2lb,
adhesive coated hand-grenade - very good at blowing up the user!
(adittedly, my source for this is Stephen Pile's "Book of Heroic Failures"
-
- although it does also mention the Russian dog bombs descussed
recently)
> You wrote:
> The next is the HEAT round - High Explosive Anti-Tank which is a
I'm NOT a tanker, so the difference between these two is to me, moot.
They're both anti-armor rounds with a secondary blast effect.
Differences in penetration are so far below the granularity of Stargrunt, much
less Dirtside.
John I have to listen to your engineering posts so I think you should put up
with some Tanker posts.
I liked his post and found it to be educational.
> -----Original Message-----
> On Tue, 30 Jun 1998, Carl J Parlagreco wrote:
> As for tanks, look at the extreme. What would a Roman legion do to
Dig a pit. Roman soldiers did a *lot* of digging. Their knowledge of
fortifications could soon be adapted to AT obstacles and downright traps.
Also, once someone gets *on* the tank there's very little the tank crew can do
about it without opening a hatch. For how many days does an M1 have food
onboard?
This is, ofcourse, assuming the Romans know what a tank is and what it can do,
instead of panicking before a mythical beast.
> Then shift it a few TL--both sides. Now
A grav tank is essentially a very powerful helo. Very nasty, but it still
can't hold ground. The trick is avoiding the stuff you can't deal with and
engaging the inevitable enemy infantry.
Now, power armour advanced enough to be imperveous to your weapons, that makes
resistance futile.
> At 04:00 PM 7/8/1998 +0300, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
It is a common practice for a friendly tank to fire its machine guns at a
friendly tank to delouse it (remove unwanted riders...).
Gort, Klaatu barada nikto!
> On Wed, 8 Jul 1998, Phillip E. Pournelle wrote:
> It is a common practice for a friendly tank to fire its machine
The scenario was ONE tank vs. ONE legion.
Which brings me to the next point: How much MG ammo? (The size of the legion
depends on exact era, but it's definitely in the thousands).
The bottom line is: When you don't stand a chance in a fair fight, stop
fighting fair.