Re: [SG2] weapons

> 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.

Sea skimmers don't fly nearly as close to the surface as most people
think.
Ground skimmers aren't going to fly that close to the ground either. 
Why?
It really stinks when your ground hugging missile plows through a bush
or
smacks tree branch and goes carening out of control because of it...

> > 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.

I have never heard anyone say that the front of the M1 wasn't relatively
proof against the L7 gun, however, no one has said this about the side
of
the M1.  Note that a 105mm RR has a slightly more effective HEAT warhead
then the L7 gun (L7 gun is the most common 105mm tank gun mounted on
M60's,
M1's, Lepord 1's, etc...).  Boom chits wreck and should have never been
included.  The represent the one in a thousand hits (or more likely one
in
ten thousand), but they happen much more often then one in a thousand. 
By
the way, FirePower lists an RPG7 as being capable of penetrating the M1
from
the middle of the side back.

> 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....

I did not put words into his mouth.  He made an assumpition that's
patently
false and I called him on it.  Is there room for tanks to improve over
the
next 160 years?  Yes.  Is there room for HEAT warheads to improve over
the
next 160 years?  Yes.  Which will have the advantage?  Anyone who claims
to
know is a B.S. artist.

> 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.

An RR is more then an IAVR and less then a GMS...

ias