Re: [GZG] [SG3]: What if?
From: Damo <damosan@g...>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 21:46:44 -0500
Subject: Re: [GZG] [SG3]: What if?
On Jan 31, 2008, at 7:04 PM, John Atkinson wrote:
> On Jan 31, 2008 1:21 PM, Damo <damosan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 31, 2008, at 10:52 AM, John Atkinson wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 31, 2008 6:42 AM, Damo <damosan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Relatively little, actually.
>>
>> What basic tenets have changed in room to room combat?
>
> I'm not regurgitating the appropriate field manual. That is left as
> an exercise for the student. But technological changes have been
> introduced, including the following.
>
Oh yes! I don't deny advances in technology or standard armaments.
No sir. Having said that a few items you mention were indeed rooted
firmly in WW2 and I guess that was my point -- you will always have
technological advances but they exist as multipliers of the core.
Someone earlier said it was foolish to look at the past in order to
project something into the future implying that any attempt to do so
with an SG3 was wasted effort. I don't think it is. If anything we
should look at city fighting in the 40's compared to today and then
project another 60 years into the future.
In 60 years will artillery be 10 seconds away...always? How about
air? Will space be completely weaponized? Will company commanders
lead from bunkers thousands of miles away with perfect situational
awareness? Will the idea of squads, platoons, etc. just go away and
be replaced by the concept of independent but mutually supporting
strike teams?
Or is this more like 120 years out?
What kind of countermeasures and counter-countermeasures will be
devised to handle this stuff.
Who knows! I guess that's what makes it fun.
Damo
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l