Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: was Re: [SG3]: What if?

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI'll
agree that this is certainly a way that warfighting technologies could
go.

At the point that you have all warfighters with servo assisted suits,
personal battlecomputers running their own network of remote sensors and
weapons, why isn't the human sitting back safely in their bunker or
armoured command vehicle running a bunch of stand off smart weapons?

It's certainly not how the GZG universe looks like it is imagined where
it's still very much human centric person to person combat.

In the kind of environment you describe the worst thing you could do is
fire your personal weapon because they would instantly confirm your
location to hundreds of enemy remote sensors and you would get a barrage
of anti personell smart weapons delivered in counterbattery mode.

You would need to set up your weapons in remote locations so they could
fire and not draw fire back at you.

Also if both sides have similar technologies there would be whole levels
of warfare between sensor drones and the hunter drones trying to protect
their own sensors and kill the enemies. EM pulses and jamming to kill
drones and blind signals could be very common as well.

Quite a lot of this is reflected by the fact that the players have the
ability to get up walk around the table and observe eveything from all
angles. So the player does have something of a coordinating battle
computer about them.

Also defensive technologies and doctrines will keep pace with sensors.
If tanks are detected by heat signatures from hot engines coming out
from their top, how long before tanks get some kind of IR sensor blanket
to mask the heat signatures or tanks that mount the heat exchangers some
place other than the top rear?

What is highlighted by this discussion is that a low tech force might be
almost completely ineffective against a higher tech force. Killed by
smart bullets before they ever new they were in range.

----- Original Message ----
From: Binhan Lin <binhan.lin@gmail.com>
To: gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
Sent: Thursday, 7 February, 2008 6:24:18 AM
Subject: Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: was Re: [SG3]: What if?

Again the "foundations" of your assumptions could also change. For
instance, the ground that people fight over may not be different, but
"LOS" may very well be different - neutrino or X-ray detectors may see
through buildings and regular geological features but diffract in unique
ways on metal or high density ceramics, UAV's may be micronized and
every soldier equipped with a loadout of 100's that are considered
expendable and thus provide 360 degree views from altitudes up to
hundreds of meters or can be sent into buildings and tunnels or other
difficult to see places.
 
Redefining LOS means that weapons, such as self-directed propelled
grenades may be the round of the future - a soldier merely designates a
target using a remote UAV, points his weapon upward and fires a 20mm
round that then directs itself to the target.
 
LOS may also be redefined as velocity of projectiles increase - In
Desert Storm 40 to 60 foot thick sand berms were no obstacle to the DU
penetrators fired by M1 tanks. Irqai tanks were located by the heat
signature of their exhaust floating above the tank - there was no direct
LOS with the target. If infantry weapons can achieve that type of
kinetic energy in a projectile, your current standards for cover - brick
walls, ditches, hills, buildings are moot and provide roughly the same
kind of cover as a bedsheet.
 
Having a human in the loop is really only required if you have some
reason to discriminate a target for some reason- i.e. conserve ammo or
reduce friendly damage.  If a computer can scan, track and fire at
hundreds of targets simultaneously, it should probably be in charge of
firing.  For instance, if a hypervelocity missile is coming at you,
human reflexes can't operate fast enough to engage a defensive system -
it should be computer run.  If a soldier is presented with 50
simultaneous targets and has the capability to shoot at all 50 at the
same time, it would take a significant amount of time for a human to
verify each target and pull the trigger 50 times..  A computer would
process the target requirements and fire at all 50 within seconds. 
 
Humans will play the role of "tactical" co-ordinators - their weapons
will be mere extensions of their thoughts.  Humans will provide the
parameters, but will leave the actual firing and target selection to
computers.
 
--Binhan