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-lAnother
good example of technology removing humans from direct combat -
aircraft.  UAV's are cheaper, smaller and can be run for extensive
periods
of time by rotating remote crews.  Since the aircraft doesn't have to
carry
a crew and all the attendant atmosphere, food, space considerations, it
can
be loaded with more fuel and munitions or made much smaller.  Also
Humans
are limited to short periods of about 9G's while hardware can be
designed
for sustained levels of 9G's and short durations of up to 50 G's or
more.
The US Air Force is fighting tooth and nail to hang on to the dwindling
supplies of human manned aircraft as remote piloted vehicles take over
50%
of their missions.

Would a WWI biplane work as well as an F-22 Raptor?  The difference in
spotting, propulsion, material and weapon technology is so vast that
they
really aren't comparable, and yet only 90 years separates the two levels
of
technology.

As you mentioned - use whatever background you like to game then PSB it.
For
instance, aliens could invade in the next decade and electronics are
useless
due to giant electromagnetic jammers that they use and we have to resort
to
mechanically operated chemically propelled weapons in our war against
the
Space Squid or whatever.

--Binhan

On 2/6/08, john.tailby@xtra.co.nz <john.tailby@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>  I'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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gzg-l mailing list
> Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
>
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l<http:/
/mead.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l>
>