Re: [DS and SG] Regiments of the Crown

Thomas spake thusly upon matters weighty: 

> 
> On Sun, 25 Oct 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> > John spake thusly upon matters weighty: 
> > > Adrian Johnson wrote:
> > Given, but if your armour and weapons mean that (similar to the 
> > British in various Zulu type scenarios, or some US Cavalry with 
> > Gatling gun vs. Native American scenarios) you can pile the bodies 
> > around you in racks and have little risk, then that may be 
> > acceptable.
> 
> i don't think you can say that rourke's drift was a situation of
'little
> risk'. many, many welshmen died that day.

Wasn't necessarily refering to any particular battle. 
 
> > I wasn't necessarily talking 10 to 1 difference, just say 
> > that a future company is maybe 10-15% lighter in manpower because it

> > has a 50% tech edge. 
> 
> 
> erm ... future companies won't have a 50% tech edge, because they'll
be
> fighting other future companies most of the time. tech edges are
relative.
> the only reasons for different-sized units would be either a major
rethink
> of field tactics (fairly unlikely without major changes in rifle vs
armour
> etc) or changes in c3i. if your lieutenant-with-a-PDA can control
twice as
> many men as a modern Lt, he may well have twice as many men: cuts down
on
> the need for Lts.
> 
> Tom

I meant, vis a vis today's force. Now you are mistaken in one sense. 
The most likely thing I can see to change force composition is 
economics. If it is expensive to put men in space (and you aren't 
shipping them like frozen fish sticks), then that will probably 
seroiusly impact force composition. For every high tech force 
equally. Hence no imbalance. Only smaller forces doing the same job. 

 
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay		     
Voice: (613) 831-2018 x 4009
Fax: (613) 831-8255

 "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot.  C++ makes
 it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg."
 -Bjarne Stroustrup
**************************************************/