Re: GMS/P vs. IAVR

>From: "Thomas.Barclay" <Thomas.Barclay@cbu.xwavesolutions.com>
>Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
>To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
>Subject: GMS/P vs. IAVR
>Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 11:42:18 -0400
>

>IAVR range limitation is a limitation to effective range of aiming over

>open
>sights.

This is a given.  But if you think about it, this already starts to lead
to 
a larger IAVR warhead.	Since the designers know it'll only be useful
out to 
a certain range, they only design it to attain that range (or a little 
extra), using the rest of the space to up the warhead.

>GMS/P attached a guidance unit to the warhead and a sighting/tracking 
>system
>to the launcher.

According to the DS II Rulebook (and it makes sense), "...virtually all
of 
them are the 'fire and forget' type - operator guidance (either by wire
or 
by radio/optical link) is no longer necessary.	Advanced
semi-intelligent 
seeker heads have given the missiles their own target identification and

discrimination capabilities...."  This means that ALL of the targeting
and 
guidance hardware/software is right in the GMS.  Furthermore, since they
DO 
have a greater range, they WILL have more propellant, plus avionics -
the 
IAVR is a fuse, a warhead, a motor, and stabilization fins. The GMS will

also need either steering thrusters or movable fins (along with their 
motors) or both on top of that.

>The warheads are the same (same damage in SG2 - no reason except taste
to
>differentiate one warhead from the other).

One does not necessarily follow the other.  Is a round from a HKP 5 
identical to a round from a HVC 5 or a MDC 5 or a DFFG 5 or a SLAM 5? No
- 
they're all very different (some more so than others). Do they draw the
same 
number of chits? Yes (Although admittedly some with more validities than

others).  Each achieves it's damage in a different way.  The same could
be 
said of the GMS/P and the IAVR.  One fires a larger, more powerful
warhead 
which has some dual purpose usefulness against a wide range of targets, 
while the other uses a smaller head which, while not as powerful, is
equally 
deadly against armor because it is designed with that dedicated purpose
in 
mind, and surrenders it's all-purpose usefulness in order to more 
effectively kill vehicles.

>Either theory will work.
>
>Thomas Barclay

Perhaps. But I think the above explains why the GMS/P should not give a
DSII 
rifle element added anti-INFANTRY capability.  And that is what the crux
of 
the whole thread was.

Brian Bilderback
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com