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

Adrian Johnson asked:

> 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.

I know. Problem is, if we lighten it any further accuracy goes to hell,
and if we shorten the barrel the pressure around the weapon - which is
rather high as it is - will increase even more :-(

> 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)?

The big problem with the smallest missiles isn't the warhead size as
such, but rather the combination of warhead size and engine size. A
warhead able to kill a tank is larger than what you need to kill an
aircraft (with a direct hit at least; AA frag warheads tend to be
bigger but allow much cheaper guidance systems); OTOH the engine you
need to hit a fast-mover is much bigger than the engine you need to hit
a tank (unless we're talking Renegade Legion tanks with cruising speeds
of several hundred mph, of course :-/). If you combine an engine strong
enough to catch a fast-moving aircraft with a warhead big enough to
kill a tank, you end up with a fairly large missile. 

Sure, the engines will get smaller and lighter in the future as we get
more efficient propellants, and the warheads might get smaller once we
get those super-explosives the scientists are muttering about (though I
doubt it - IMO the targets will get correspondingly tougher instead, so
even if the total mass of the explosives gets lower we'll need to add
counter-countermeasures to get past the active defences :-/ ), but
it'll always be possible to build a specialized missile smaller than a
dual-purpose one. If the GSM/P are to be similar in weight to the
Javelin (or preferrably lighter still), they'll have problems hitting
fast-movers.

> Maybe they can just engage both, without any kind of fiddling?

GSM/H, most likely. GSM/L, probably. GSM/P... no. If they can do that,
they're too large to be GSM/P - or we have single-man-portable GSM/L-H 
:-/

> 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).

In the GMS-AA case, penetration goes down if it hits an AFV - it is
maneuverable enough to hit, but generally carries a lighter warhead
since its intended targets are softer. In the GMS-AT case, the hit
probability against fast-moving aircraft (ie, not what DSII calls
"VTOLs") goes way down; the warhead is definitely strong enough... *if*
it hits.

Regards,

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