Re: [SG2] weapons

--- "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@sprintmail.com> wrote:

> No it doesn't.  You're making a zillion assumptions,
> such as the lack
> increase in the effectiveness of the warhead, that

Yeah.  I'm looking at it as an HVC without muzzle
velocity.  Sure, you can knock down buildings or nail
trucks with it, but it's not going to be terribly
effective against anything much heavier.

> that a 105mm RR (Recoiless Rifle) firing a HEAT
> warhead can penetrate the
> side of an M1 and M1A tank?  

Source?  I'm also assuming that MBTs in SG/DS are
superior to modern ones--I mean, to go from the first
tanks to the M1 took a mere 65 years (more or less). 
What will they be like in another 180?

> The best way to view a RR in DSII would be the
> warhead of a GSM/L stuck on a
> range 18" cannon, with the firecontrol being one
> worse against moving
> targets.  Note that defense systems would not be
> capable of intercepting the
> round.  You can extract SG rules from this.

Yeah!  d4 FiCon!  I'll take two-to-one odds in your
favor and do a frontal charge.	With APCs.  These
things are manually aimed, remember?

> By the way, the Brit's fielded a 120mm RR called the
> Wombat.

I may be wrong, but wouldn't the weight on that sort
of thing defeat the primary purpose, which is to be
light-weight and man-portable?	At any rate, any army
which isn't a joke dropped RRs larger than the Carl
Gustav in favor of ATGMs years ago.  And the CG is
more of a reloadable IAVR than a GMS/L.

John

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree