Re: [DS] Some questions from this weekend

--- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:

Re: Armored overruns.  Basically, it's not usually a
good idea.  It can be done, but it's expensive against
modern regular troops liberally equipped with
anti-armor weapons.  We can quibble about individual
historical cases, but like any other close assault
it's most effective against shaky troops unused to
being attacked directly.  With better-trained troops
it's a coin toss.  Against really good infantry, it's
a bad idea.

> So why do you want to reduce the standard combat
> load, if your average 
> grunts can carry that much? After all, above you
> seem to take his 
> description of what an American fire team can carry
> as some sort of norm... <g>

Now, you're confluting two of my statements together
and making a composite statement out of 'em.

1)Item:  Tracking IAVRs in DSII is a bit silly.  The 8
per team number was given as an upper range.  Neither
modern US nor NRE units carry this many on a regular
basis.	There are missions which call for that many.

2)Item:  For the whole of recorded history, infantry
carried 60 lbs fighting load.  US followed this
historical trend until the 1970s, when light infantry
types managed to take over the US Army (all the mech
guys who won WWII and Korea were gone, and the light
infantry idiots who lost Vietnam took over by
default)and to make up for something (small genitalia,
IMNSHO) upped the load carried by our squaddies well
beyond reason.	I believe that loading down infantry
with the kitchen sink and more should be the exception
that might be required by certain missions rather than
the standard practice, as it is in US Army today.

3)Item:  Future IAVRs might not weigh as much as
modern ones.  The IAVRs modelled on OU light infantry
are smaller than a collapsed M72 LAW.

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better