Prev: Re: Proper prefix codes for NSL and FSE ships - help... Next: Re: Need Good SGII Camo Ideas

Re: GMS Air, foreign purchasing, and my original question...

From: Adrian Johnson <ajohnson@i...>
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 03:07:54 -0400
Subject: Re: GMS Air, foreign purchasing, and my original question...

>
>> HARM missile systems - US Airforce. VTOLs - US Marines had to do a
lot
>> of work to get Harriers. There's a fair few other systems, but I
can't
>> recall them all.
>
>LAV's they are a Canuk product...Beretta M9. The Naval Sealift Command 
>has a bunch of Maersk line (Dutch) ships contracted to act as fast 
>transports. 
>

The LAV's are built in Canada, but started out as a Swiss design, and
are
produced by the Diesel Division of General Motors of Canada (of course
that
being a subsidiary of GM-USA).	Let's hear it for Globalization....

Canada has used the Carl-G for decades, and the Canadian infantiers I've
talked to about it say it's a good piece of kit, but too heavy - even
the
lighter more modern versions.  My friend fired one during famil training
at
an old tank, and the round bounced off the turret and set fire to some
grass on the range.  They then had to put the fire out and he was most
unimpressed - particularly since I think the tank he fired it at was an
old
Korean-war vintage Centurian, or something like that...  We also use the
US-made LAW, though for some reason I think that the Canadian
*disposable,
one use* LAWs are reloaded - maybe for practice purposes only, but
that's
what I was told...  What we don't have is a good GMS/P - and with the
introduction of the Javelin we're finally getting something that is
guided,
but smaller than the TOW...

That all aside, what I think I originally commented on was the idea that
there are GMS systems NOW, like the ADATS, which have been specifically
designed to engage (effectively) both air and ground targets.  Is is
reasonable, in the world of 2180, to suggest that they will have this
capability in their GMS systems.  In particular (since I'm a Stargrunt
player mostly) is it reasonable to think that the GMS/P, GMS/L and GMS/H
systems that my troopers and vehicles carry should be able to engage
both
types of targets?

Maybe the seeker/guidance system can engage both (since all GZG-universe
GMS systems are fire-and-forget, I believe), but the gunner has to
change
out the warhead to engage the different targets, particularly in the
smallest missiles (the GMS/P)?	Maybe they can just engage both, without
any kind of fiddling?

I suggested a mechanism (in game terms) somthing like the following:

You have a designated system, either GMS-AA or GMS-AT, but either system
can engage the other target type.  There is some penalty for engaging
the
non-designated target type though.  Maybe your guidance system die goes
down by one.  Maybe your armour penetration goes down - say from d12 (or
multiple thereof) to d8 (or multiple thereof).

What do you guys think?

Adrian


Prev: Re: Proper prefix codes for NSL and FSE ships - help... Next: Re: Need Good SGII Camo Ideas