Re: Tech Levels and Quality was Re: DS3 design (long)

--- Thomas Westbrook <tom_westbrook@yahoo.com> wrote:
> My interpretation of the DS2 rules is that both are comparable
> systems, i.e. both are rifles and in DS2 terms the older weapon
> system is given to the militia [National Guard, etc.] even though in
> reality some (not all) NG units have better gear and, to a degree,
> training than the regular forces.

I think that we are talking around two different ideas.  If you go back
and re-read my original post of 21 Sept 2004, and in particular points
#5 and #8, I think you will see that.

First, in #5, I am talking about Tech Levels for SYSTEMS, i.e. places
where DS2 already use System Quality, such as GMS, FCS, etc..  In this
point I am advocating expanding the diversity of current System Quality
levels.  I also proposed to have a sliding scale of Capacity costs for
vehicular systems in relation to both their actual System Quality and
the Tech capabilities of the originating force.

Second, in #8, I propose applying these tech levels to VEHICULAR
WEAPONS.  The example I offer is pretty clear on this.	Nowhere did I
mention infantry weapons nor did I address anything about Line vs.
Militia infantry.

Thus, when you began comparing .30 cal. bolt-action and SA rifles to
small caliber assault rifles, I related it to the DS2 vehicular weapon
rules.

If you want to talk about how to grade modern US forces as DS2
infantry, fine.  I have not seen USAR or USNG equipped with the weapons
that you discribe in the last 25 years.  They are all equipped with
M16-family small arms.	In DS2 terms, they would be graded the same as
USA regulars, but with a Quality of Green or Regular rather than
Regular or Veteran, representing their less constant training.	DS2 is
pretty clear that "line" and "militia" is related to the equipment of
the force, not the nomenclature a particular government uses.

>  
> Also, the evolution of black powder to smokeless powder is IMO an
> increase in tech level but the changing of doctrine from killing
> enemy soldiers to only wounding them, therefore we use a smaller
> bullet, is IMO NOT a change in tech level as both rounds are cased or
> case-less chemically propelled lead bullets REGARDLESS of size.

And that is what I said.  That small-caliber assault rifles are a
different weapon system type if considered in terms of DS2 vehicular
weapons.

 
> Combat ranges when from 50-m to 1000-m (During the US civil War) down
> to 300-m in WW2 and down to 50-m in Vietnam.	An EM propelled bullet
> aka Gauss round, or gyro-jet or particle weapon would be an increase
> in technology.
>  

And, I said that too.

> We still use shells manufactured in WW2 for use in the 5-in guns, at
> least we did in the late 90's.  The Navy was even proud that the US
> had rounds in their inventory over 50 yrs old and still firing.

No, we don't.  That is just plain false.  I challenge you to site your
source.

The reason that that is false is that munitions of all types have a
shelf-life of only 20-30 years.  Anything lasting longer than that is
destroyed as a matter of policy.  The reason for this is that the
chemicals in propellents and explosives degrade over time.  Some become
inert, and thus useless; others become unstable, subject to detonation
in high ambient heat or humidity or from rough handling.  In
particular, some naval propellent cordites are prone to sweat
nitroglyceryn and the shell fillers become prone to detonations from
jarring or tropical climate heat.

> The M2 machine gun is the same design as the US had in WW2, firing
> the same round from WW2!

The same design, yes.  Actual 1940's ammunition, no.

In point of fact, the M2HB was originally the M-1921.  That's closer to
WW1, not WW2, and even then it is basically a scaled up M1917/M1919 .30
cal..

>  And, the M60 GPMG is an Americanized Wermacht MG-34 or 42 (I don't
remenber which).

As is the current German MG3.  <shrug>

>  
> THE POINT I was trying to make, though evidently not good enough, is
> that tech levels are largely subject to interpretation by different
> people.  For example GURPS uses chronological dating for increase in
> tech level, though IMO the cased bullet from the 1930's is generally
> the same as the cased bullet from today and performs in the same
> manner and expectations.  Generally speaking	by my interpretation of
> tech level there is no increase in tech level, though by the rules,
> there is a 2 tech level increase.  We can always examples that don't
> fit the mold.

I don't know the GURPS system, so I can't comment.

>  
> I can debate the quality of US vs European vs Russian tanks, because
> I generally don't agree with your assessment and will leave it at
> that.
>  

Then you need to do some more research.  And I did not compare US to
European as you imply.	I placed them in the same category and compared
the lot to the Soviets.  Additionally, I specifically limited it to
designs that entered service in the late 1970s/early 1980s and all
successors, particularly the Abrams, Challenger, and Leopard 2.  The
exception to this is the Leclerc, as I do not know whether it uses
Chobham or not.

J