Re: [GZG] [SG] IAVRs

[John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 12/8/05, Roger Books <roger.books@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Is it reasonable to have each ACR equipped soldier carrying 1 IAVR?

Sure.  Depending on your PSB, IAVR can be pretty lightweight.

> That brings up a scenario.  A platoon of infantry/cavalry in associated
> MICVs, the organic artillery vehicle (locked down), and a heavy tank, are
> travelling on a road in mountainous terrain.  They are ambushed by 2(?) dug
> in squads.  Victory conditions: eliminate 3 vehicles and escape with no more
> than 20% wounded/killed.

Depends on vegetation, cover, and distance from the attackers to the
kill zone, as well as the reaction of the dismounts and their ability
to get to the enemy.

> All vehicles are hover and can't reach the attackers.

Once the artillery disengaged the travel lock and started direct
firing at the attackers, it would be pretty ugly.  If they can kill
the enemy in the first turn they win.  Otherwise they are going to
loose.  Ambushes of targets with this much mismatch in capabilities
are either over quickly or don't work out real well.

> Also, if they have assigned MICVs that makes them cavalry, correct?

Nomenclature is entirely dependant on the nation's traditions. 
However, that is not the case for any current major power that I can
think of.

John
--
"Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain them again
and again.  We're looking for thousands of Persians."
--Vita Aureliani

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l