Re: [SG2] weapons

--- "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> It won't be any worse then a similar diameter GSM.

(I'm assuming you meant GMS)

How do you figure that? The GMS can follow terrain and
juke to help minimize ADS effectiveness, and has
active guidance to adjust for target course &  speed. 
The RR fires directly and follows a ballistic
trajectory right at the target, which makes it easier
to dodge or shoot down.

> Source: A great old game from Avalon Hill called
> FirePower...	

Which carries the same weight as the real life
expertise of someone like OO, who mentioned the luck
of the shot that killed the M1 in Iraq.  I'd call that
a Boom! chit if it had happened in DS.

Isn't that
> rather inconsistent to assume that tanks are going
> to improve over the next
> 180 years, but that HEAT warheads won't???  

John didn't actually say that, you're putting words in
his mouth there.  I'm hesitant to do the same thing,
but what I THINK John was assuming, and what *I* would
certainly argue, is that while both Tanks and HEAT
rounds will improve, that the potential level of
improvement of the HEAT round, a specific weapon, is
much more limited than the improvement potential of an
entire combat system like a Tank (HEAT:   Velocity,
warhead power, and firecon are the three aspects that
can be improved.  IF you increase the velocity, it's
not longer a LOW velocity weapon, and would be treated
as something esle under the game rules, now wouldn't
it?  You can increase the Firecon, but if it's direct
fire and low velocity, ADS/PDs is still going to be
it's demise.  If you make it capable of changing
course in flight, it's now a GMS.  You can improve
warhead power via improved explosive materials and
shapes, but again, the Low Velocity Vs. PDS issue
remains.  VS.  Tank: Ignoring all other improvements,
just in survivability, the tank adds stealth, FireCon
jamming, PDS, coverage from ADS....

If they
> don't, then IVAR's and
> possibly GSM's will be useless...

IAVR's will probably be of limited use, and GMS will
have it's place but not be invincible.

> I simply listed it as an example of the largest RR
> that was in service that
> I know of.  It was mounted on landrover or similar
> light utility truck.	

Just because it's in service doesn't make it the best
tool for the job, or even a good idea.....

=====
"Teach a man to make fire, and he will be warm for a day.  Set a man on
fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life."   -- John A.
Hrastar

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