Re: Part 1 of Just why would you use mixed turrets?

--- Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@juno.com> wrote:

> First let's make one point this is not a gun and  an
> APSW thing.  Putting > an APSW in a  coax mounting
appears to be > non-existent in the rules but
> definitely has no advantages and possibly some
> disadvantages.  But that > is another e-mail...

DS II is sufficiently abstract that exactally where
you keep your free APSW is irrelevant, as is what you
do with any extras you hang on your vehicles.

> (assume you design AFV to fit a particular
> "national" > viewpoint/style/preference/prejudice)

A nation with stupid AFV design prejudices has the
same problems the Italians did in WWII.  Just a minor
note.

> 1)  If you use HEL's and you want something more
> effective against AFV up > close and personal.

Let's take a size 4 MBT.  You can easily fit a size 5
HEL.  Or you can put on a class 4 HEL and a class 4
something else. . . if you don't want to fit some PDS
(which in my experience means you end up GMS fodder). 
More realistically, a class 3 HEL and a class 3
something else.  Well, what else are you going to put
on there.  If you've got the power output (ie, are
using an FGP) for an HEL large enough to take
seriously, you may as well slap on an MDC.  And an HEL
doesn't have enough of a range advantage to really
reccomend it over a size 5 MDC in the first place,
which would be cheaper than the combo.	The other
option is to throw in a DFFG for short range punch. 
This leaves you with a truly confused AFV crew--are
they supposed to close with the enemy and melt him
down, or stand off and plink?  Design a vehicle to do
both and anything less than an expert commander will
end up doing neither well.  But then I'm kind of
fanatic about designing vehicles for one mission.

> and/or
> 
> 2)  You want an effective Anti-Infantry weapon that
> reaches beyond the > 12" range of the APSW and
preferably out to if not > past the 36" of the
> infantry carried GMS/L.

What?  I don't really think any of the options you've
got available are that hot against infantry.  YMMV,
but 2 chits is kind of wussy for the points you'd be
spending.  Just shell out for some mortars instead. 
It's cheaper to buy a pair of mortars per company--and
more versatile.  Let the beautiful poetry of combined
arms in action do it's thang, don't make your vehicles
"all things to all men."

>  This is generally a matter of DFFG using nations
> since Nations using > primarily HVC, RFAC and
(lesser?) HKP weapons will > be using CFE or maybe
> HMT power plants.  Else they would be considering
> the MDC if they used > FGP's.  Although a HEl/1 is
certainly a viable > option for them as I will
> discuss later.

HEL/1 is about useless--can't get a reliable kill on a
jeep.  (Do the math--it's got about a 50% chance of
doing nothing, and another chance of doing 0 damage). 
But using DFFG primaries with HKP backups is about
backwards--a force like that could be eaten alive by
faster forces skirmishing at long range.  Or
purpose-built HKP-armed tanks.	See, a single-armed
turret will always fit a bigger gun, so it will always
have better range.  

> There may be other reasons but these three came up
> when I created my > campaign nations for scenario
generation.

You covered all the ones I can think of.

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.