Re: GMS/P and Infantry

Jim Whitehead wrote:

[good comments about locking GMS/P onto people snipped]

> One reason GMS/P is ineffective against infantry due to the slower 
> speed of the munitions in question, (The guidance systems tax the 
> engines more than a M72 LAW type rocket's engine), and the increased
> size of the guided missile over an IAVR (the engines are larger and
there > is a guidance system tacked on,) means that point defence can
actually > acquire the target where an IAVR is half the size and
approx. 50% faster.
> Infantry actually have a decent chance of diving out of the way, or
even 
> staying put and the warhead locking on to something more appealing  >
(having a bigger signature).

While this is true for true rockets, many of today's IAVR-ish weapons -
the Bofors AT4, the Miser, IIRC the Panzerfausts as well, to name some
weapons existing today - aren't rocket-powered. A GMS/P missile (with
an in-flight rocket engine) is very likely to fly faster than these
grenades.

It is also very likely that future LAW generations will have some sort
of guidance, so I wouldn't make too much of the difference between
guided and unguided missiles.

>     As far as warheads themselves, the IAVR, if reuseable (like a 
rocket
> propelled grenade type) , may have multiple type warheads, explosive 
> anti personell, and Shaped Charge Anti Tank (SCAT rounds). 

"SCAT"	are more commonly called HEAT (High Explosive Anti Armour)
nowadays - the only modern warheads that aren't SC are the pure
fragmentation AP ones (and smoke, light and other non-lethal types).
There are almost as many abbreviations as there are grenade and missile
types, though - each manufacturer invents his own :-/

> SCAT type warheads only detonate on hard armor, they will pass right 
> through a human without detonating. Okay this has the effect of 
> removing one figure (maybe, a glancing blow or a near hit is more
likely 
> to give minor brusing than anything devistating) 

I'd imagine that even a glancing blow from a 2.5+ kg projectile coming
at you at 150 m/s or more would give you somewhat more than a minor
bruising - unless you're in a PA suit, but if you are the bloody thing
is likely to explode anyway since the PA *is* hard armour :-/ Still,
it's only one figure lost.

> but the effectiveness of the warhead is lost. The
> detonation of the warhead will not affect anyone in the squald as the
> warheads are not strictly explosive, but direct their energy down
into the
> ground,

Here you seem to assume a roof-hitting projectile. The shooter has to
screw up rather badly to get a glancing hit on infantry with such a one
- they're designed to overfly their target, not hit it head-on.

> even the shrapnel at anything over two yards will be a dirt shower,
> not a frag explosion

Um... Obviously SG/DS shaped-charge development has reached *far*
beyond where we are today, if they're able to concentrate the energy
that well in a single direction <g> I wouldn't recommend standing two
yards to the side of a detonating shaped-charge warhead, even if it's
only LAW-sized :-/

I think the first part of your analysis - GMS/P have difficulties to
lock on to infantry targets, whereas impact- or time-fused IAVRs don't
need to lock on - is pretty much spot on. The rest, well... you've
already seen my comments <g>

Later,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry