More RFACs

I said:

< Well, an RFAC/1 is an autocannon in the 20mm cal range.  I don't like
that
>these have impact d8 vs. infantry either.  If it is a 30mm firing
single
>shots that are basically explosive (so the troops are taking explosive
>damage primarily, not impact damage from the rounds) then that makes
more
>sense.  But if you hose an infantry unit with a Vulcan cannon, it's
going
>to make a big mess.

Mike said:

>From a DS2 perspective, I agree that RFACs seem like they could use
more

punch against infantry.  I have also wanted to see this with air defense

weapons.  At the Origins War College last year, an Army officer
discussed
the effectiveness of AA against infantry, especially in urban conflict.
His
discussions focussed I believe on the Russians experience in Grosney.
This
was part of an urban warfare class.  Very interesting class and very
informative.  He made a lot of interesting notes of how most armies are
not
equipped to fight in urban conflicts.

I add:
** The interesting thing is this has ALWAYs been true. WW2 Ostwinds
(German) were deadly against infantry (mind you, the .88 was deadly
against tanks and it started life as AA gun, but thats another story).
The American M3 with the quad 50 was obnoxious. In Nam, at Hue and other
places, they used little vehicles to move quad .50s into place and they
literally ripped apart the target area... they just had to keep feeding
them ammo at a huge rate. Any rapid fire cannon is going to make a nasty
weapon against infantry. Not to mention the possibility of exploding
rounds or that even a graze can cause enough hydrostatic shock to kill
(cause a heart attack like effect).

--
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun." - Ash, Army of Darkness

Homepage: http:\\fox.ntsn.ca\~kaladorn\index.html
ICQ: 58316640 (Tomin8tor)

"Ah. I see. Inform me if there is any change in his condition."
<hangs up the phone>
"How is he?"
"He's dead."
-- The movie Top Secret