Prev: Re: Variant PDAF/ADAF Rules Next: (no subject)

Re: Variant PDAF/ADAF Rules

From: Mike Miserendino <phddms1@c...>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 11:25:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Variant PDAF/ADAF Rules

Ludo Toen wrote:
>Comparing PDAF and ADAF to modern day weapons they would be the same as
>Phalanx (or Goalkeeper) for point, and SAM for area defense. In Harpoon
>(modern naval combat) these systems can both be used in anti-ship
>They haven't got a long range or do a lot of damage, but it works. So I
>see no reason why not to use this variant rules, if you want to.

Not all SAMs carried aboad a ship are designed for the anti-ship role. 
ships can launch both SAMs and SSMs from the same launcher, but some SAM
emplacements would be worthless against a warship.

>BTW: When the Argentines invaded South Georgia (Falklands war), Royal
>marines engaged an Argentine Frigate with small arms and AT weapons.
>frigate had to pull back after having its 100mm gun knocked out by two
>LAW hits, being hit in the waterline by a Carl Gustav round and another
>round hitting its missile launcher! They also downed a Puma and damaged
>an Alouette III.

Using weapons designed to penetrate heavily armored vehicles would make
difference versus one designed for soft targets.

Mike Miserendino

Prev: Re: Variant PDAF/ADAF Rules Next: (no subject)