RE: SG II: Flame vs. armor

That is unless the tanker has his head sticking out of the tank. But,
let's
not start that thread again.

In a future battlefield that relies on sensors, flame attacks that stick
to
the AFV might temporarily blind it. It also may be used in conjunction
with
heat-seeking weapons. Or if the fire produces more smoke than fire.
Other
than that I don't see a lot of use. 

CFE may be susceptible to the "engine overheating" or "oxygen
starvation"
from sticky-flame attacks, but HMTs (Fuel Cell) or FGPs (Fusion) should
be
fairly immune.

Another attack along the same lines may include "paint" grenades that
spread
a opaque, radar absorbing or reflecting paint over the target obscuring 
its
sensors. I believe that someone on the list suggested this late last
year,
but I forget both who and when.

-----
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net	   
-----

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ludo Toen [SMTP:Ludo.Toen@ping.be]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 12:38 PM
> To:	gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> Subject:	Re: SG II: Flame vs. armor
> 
> Geoffery R wrote:
> 
> > A good representation if your looking for visual examples is in the
> > video
> > "The Beast of War" where Mujahadin close assault a coupleof Russian
> > tanks in
> > their village.
> >
> > Buck
> > ______________________________________________________
> > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
> 
> If I'm not mistaken the best way to use those is by throwing them on
the
> engine decking. The engine'll overheat (and catch fire?) by the hot
air
> being sucked in. Other than that I can't really see them doing much
> damage. Look at news reports about riots in Northern Ireland, those
> jeeps don't seem to mind a little fire (paintjob excepted).
> 
>