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

["james mitchell" <tagalong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.Um  would the raptor be able to lock on to a ww1 biplane, cause I think he may be too basic to lock on to, a good emp blast would make mr raptor a flat raptor, can his guns train on to the biplane or is he just moving to quick.

 

james.

 

P.S jon where did you get the resign buildings eg hallways from that appear in SG 2.

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Binhan Lin

To: gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 9:42 AM

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

Another 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@xxxxxxxxxx <john.tailby@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx>
To: gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l

---

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l