Re: [DS] Some questions from this weekend

John Atkinson wrote:

> >Well... as long as "where the FDC tells it" is an area some 50-100
meters
> >wide, anyway <g> At least that's what the active US and British
> >artillerymen I've talked to/listened in on recently claim :-/
>
>Talk to Don.  He's the cannon-cocker here.
>
>But since we're talking about Dirtside II where 50-100m is .5-1" it's 
>fairly trivial.

That's a large enough potential deviation to turn a "perfect" placement
of 
the sheaf (ie., covering the entire platoon) into a marginal hit
(hitting 
only a few elements in the platoon).

> >>FDC is an AI nowdays.  What's left is the primary cause of artillery
not
> >>hitting the target in any era:  Spotter Error.  However, with GPS in
> >>every helmet and laser rangefinders on every rifle, then that is
reduced.
> >
> >...and with even weak GPS jammers built by off-the-shelf radio
components,
> >or distributed by enemy artillery, it goes back up again ;-)
>
>Inertial Trackers as an idiot-proof backup to your GPS. . .

If inertial trackers are idiot-proof, why use GPS in the first place?

> >>>3) Can vehicles alone close assault infantry? If not, why not?
> >>
> >>I'm inclined to say NO, because it's called Infantry Close Assault. 
But
> >>it doesn't say so.
> >
> >How would you do an overrun attack by vehicles against infantry in
SGII?
>
>I would't do it in Dirtside, that's for sure.

Good point <g>

>Personally, modern infantry have nasty, sharp, pointy
>teeth inside about 300m so any tanker that tries to
>get that close to people with modern AT weapons should
>just be ruled dead of terminal stupidity.

I design those teeth for a living... Today's "IAVR" equivalents don't
kill 
a modern tank frontally, unless they're very lucky. Tomorrow's "IAVRs",
ie. 
the ones we're developing today, have a better chance - they'll kill 
*today's* tanks from any aspect... but tomorrow's tanks will undoubtedly
be 
better protected than today's tanks are. (And so the arms race goes
on...) 
Flank and rear shots have a much better kill probability, but that means

that you'll have to hold your fire until the tanks are already in the 
middle of your position. Better make sure that those FNGs don't fire too

early...

And why would the tanks be restricted to machine guns only? Main guns
can 
be *quite* effective against infantry as well, particularly if they're 
capable of firing beehive-style rounds... not to mention what a DFFG can
do 
to a foxhole at close range.

The US Army in 'Nam seems to have been pretty successful when 
close-assaulting well dug-in enemy infantry in the jungle with light 
armoured vehicles, BTW - and while the North Vietnamese didn't have as
good 
AT weapons as we have today, the Sheridans and ACAVs assaulting them
didn't 
have much armour to speak of either :-/

> >>My question would be WHY?  There's no benefit that
> >>shooting at them with IAVRs wouldn't bring.
> >
> >Because you're one of those players who keep track of the number of
IAVRs
> >used, and you have run out of them?
>
>If you play DSII with a significant amount (3+ platoons) of infantry
and 
>you keep track of IAVRs individually, you're what's called 
>"Obsessive-Compulsive" and I can only recommend a long session of
therapy.

Or you're a veteran SGII player but not too experienced with DSII <g>

>Especially considering that according the the dumb grunt reading over
my 
>shoulder,
>a 4-man fireteam of 'Merican infantry could easily be carrying 8 AT-4s 
>without breaking a sweat.

You're the one who wanted to reduce the 60-lb combat carry; 2 AT4s per
man 
is about half that load already. Then you have rifle+ammo, water and 
possibly body armour on top of that as "must-haves"... if you're not to 
exceed 60 lbs per man, who carries the SAW and the M203? Not to mention
the 
fancy battlefield electronics? <g>

Later,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."