Re: DSII Question- Obstacles

Thomas Barclay wrote:
> 
> > Well, the way I see it, barbed wire would be ignored by vehicles,
and
> > dragon teeth would be ignored by foot soldiers (although, if densely
sown,
> > they could count as cover, ne?) One could certainly sow both
together...
> > with mines, if you're feeling like annoying the sappers.
> 
> A full defence would include obstacles and wire to channelize
> infantry and vehicles, covered by arcs of fire from units including
> support weapons, interspersed with mines to prevent obstacle
> clearance and to destroy aggressive vehicles or personel. CDMs to
> provide a last ditch close in shock to any assaulting troops, with
> mortars and other short range company level support assets to destroy
> the attacker while they move through the obstacles, mines, and
> infantry fire. Once you start considering the multipliers in force
> that a well laid defence gives, you realize that attackers often need
> their 3:1 odds and good arty prep and air support in order to have
> any chance of success.

You forgot to mention preplanned fire support for battalion, division,
or 
corps assets, or from other services i.e. Air Force or Orbitial
bombardment, 
if you've got the accuracy.  (8-)

Seriously though, I've found that such setups make really bad game
scenarios,
unless you're replaying World War I, Western Front.  Otherwise, you
would 
need extremely compelling reasons to attack a defence like that head on,

whatever the odds are.

Much more likely are hasty defences where you toss up some wire, sow
some 
scatterable mines, work up a real quick fire plan with your Space Naval
FSO, 
and you pray that the armoured company Brigade promised you shows up. 
(8-)

> > Something else that bears consideration: tank traps. Big pits would
slow
> > down about anything but (again)grav vehicles and PA troopers.
> 
> I think PA might be slowed down too. Or a big enough pit could drop
> in a grav vehicle. What about a pit filled with monomolecular tipped
> spikes that could punch through PA (bengal tiger trap made modern)?
> What about a buried device that goes off and kills the electronics in
> PA or in vehicles? (they have these now for use by police to kill
> engines and end  high speed chases).

One thing that has always confused me about 'monofilament' and
'monomolecular' 
type devices; the entire thing has to be monofilament before it'll cut
through,
right?	Otherwise the thing has a really nice edge, but it won't punch
through 
anything i.e. monomolecular tipped spikes don't mean anything unless the

whole thing was monomolecular; which kind of limits the damage you could
produce
unless you manage to vent the fusion reactor.

> Another interesting point I haven't see anyone take is the Grav Tanks
> vs. Tracklayers or ACV. You say "But grav are better! They can fly!"
> Anyone who ever did Striker or Striker II vehicle design for
> Traveller will remember this classic dilemna. Do I armour four sides
> (or five if you count the top) heavily, or do I add that sixth side
> (the bottom) where I won't have any weapons bearing, but I'll still
> have to carry an extra weight of armour if I'm going to fly around
> and fight. I think a Grav vehicle (by virtue of having to armour six
> sides roughly equally - only good sense, maybe more on the front and
> turret) will have a lower average level of armour than a similar tech
> tracklayer or ACV. Also I think any of these would be susceptible to
> a buried straight-up firing armour piercing missile-mine.  Also can
> you say Grav Mines? If I can pack grav electronics into a tank, why
> not into a mine? A grav pulse could slam grav vehicles into the
> ground by increasing gravity or cancelling their anti-grav fields.
> Ouch. Or Anti-Grav field seeking missiles? Oooh, too bad for the grav
> vehicles.....

Renegade Legion: Centurion covered a lot of this stuff.  However the
point was
made that Grav Vehicles were the only choice for first-line troops
simply 
because they could out-maneuver any other unit other there.  But they 
were vulnerable to countermeasures that conventional vehicles weren't
vulnerable
to.  

> Opinions?

Many.  Justifiable?  A little less than many.  (8-)

J.

-- 
 *** Jerry Han - jhan@idigital.net - http://www.idigital.net/jhan ***
 "There's a tug of war between what I can and can't feel
		    The inevitable compromise determines the real..."
	 "Battle of Someone" - Blues Traveller - TBFTGOGGI