Re: [GZG] Target Identification and IFF

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 8/30/05, B Lin
<lin@rxkinetix.com> wrote: 
> 
> There is actually a range of issues in identification:
> 
> First: Is there something there?
> Second: What is it?
> Third: Is it Friendly?

 Of course, the what is it question is secondary to the friendly/hostile

question.
 It is largely irrelevant whether the tank on the hill is a T-55,
T-62,or 
T-72. It just doesn't matter, as long as it is clear it isn't an M-1 and
so 
it goes "Boom" in a dramatic fashion shortly after that call is made.
Does 
even a cav scout really need to know the nuances between a BTR-60P and a

BTR-80? As long as he reports "3 BTRs on the ridge, 25 dismounts, 3 AT 
missle systems dug into fighting positions" he's done his job.

c) Using the double-blind system, have units fall in and out of contact
> - units that are out of contact disappear from the board to be
replaced
> by a "last known" marker which may or may not represent their actual
> location and status. When they re-appear, they will only have a
generic
> marker and need to be identified or re-contacted before they can be
used
> again.

 Good luck. That requires a lot of work--especially given
modern/near-future 
RSTA technology and countermeasures against those technologies. It is a 
matter of personal opinion as to where this will go in the future. 
Personally, I am of the opinion that miniature wargaming as it exists is
far 
more representative of the RSTA and C4I capabilities of a future force
than 
would be the intensely complicated series of systems you seem to
suggest.
  John
-- 
"Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain them again
and 
again. We're looking for thousands of Persians."
--Vita Aureliani