Re: DS: SAW versus APSW versus RFAC

Don't we have grav vehicles in our rules? What's wrong with making a
grav
sled to put a Fifty on? Sure, it would still have inertia, but it would
be a lot easier for only a couple of guys to tow it around. And when it
comes time to shoot, turn off the grav sled. Or, if yuo want to be
_really_ sure you don't move, just reverse it, so you stick to the
ground. :-) Remember, if we have the technology for one thing, we have
to
use it in other areas as well, or explain why we can't. After all, this
isn't Star Trek we're talking about here. ;-)

I've got a few ideas why this grav sled won't work, but I kinda like it,
so if you want to know why not, y'all will have to ask me.

On Sun, 08 Mar 1998 10:29:46 -0800 John Leary <realjtl@sj.bigger.net>
writes:
>Steve Pugh wrote:
>...Snips throughout...(JTL)
>> Well considering what's been said since this was written and also
>> bearing in mind that we are talking SF here and thus we might be 
>able
>> to expect lighter, stronger alloys (and wouldn't caseless ammo also
>> reduce the weight a bit?) I'd propose the following:
>> 3-man team Normal Movement
>> 2-man Encumbered Movement
>> 1-man Forget it!
>
>> > > Weapon		      Firepower     Impact
>> > > ------------------------------------------------------
>> > > HMG		       D10	     D6x2
>> > > Rotary HMG	       D12	     D6x2
>> > > Gauss HMG	       D12	     D8x2
>> >
>> > I'd be tempted to use D8x2 for the HMG also. The M2HB hits way
>> > harder than the 7.62mm multi-barrell does. The Gauss is obviously
>> > best of both worlds. 
>> 
>> I wasn't intending the Rotary HMG to be a 7.62mm equivalent. I was
>> intending it to be the multi-barrelled equivalent of the HMG. Sure
>> there's no way such a brute could be man-packed today, but as I said
>> above this is SF and power supplies have to be smaller/lighter to
>> make gauss weapons and power armour possible. Ditto coolant systems
>> and caseless ammo.
>
>>	   Steve
>
>
>Steve,
>     I agree completely that the better alloys of reduced weight and
>increased strength.   This improvement will make the HMG more 
>transportable in any form.   
>
>     Caution; a big 'however' follows.     
>     
>     HOWEVER, the HMG improved in this manner will be useless on the 
>field of battle.   As a squad or platoon leader I would rather have
>3 or 4 guys with the 50 cal. long range semi-auto target rifle
>than the HMG that is being discussed.	 The reason is simple, my
>3/4 snipers will deliver more rounds on target in a shorter period
>of time than the HMG.	 
>
>     Many of the people reading this will say "No, way in hades" is
>that last statement true.  
>
>     Caution; a big 'however' follows.
>
>     HOWEVER, the reduction in weight coupled with an increase in
>firepower (tri-barrel), will cause the weapon to 'walk' upwards at
>an alarming rate, it is not unlikely that such a weapon would roll
>over if an attempt was made to fire a sustained burst.  It is very
>unlikely that more that two rounds from this weapon could have a 
>chance to hit a target.   (It could justify the 'fourth man' on the
>crew, he could throw himself across the gun to add weight.   The 
>disadvantage here is that it will be more difficult to aim!)
>     It is unlikely that a reduction in gun weight will cause a 
>reduction in load for the crew.   The weapon being discussed will
>have an increased rate of fire and therefore the crew will carry
>more ammunition.
>
>> >Once you go to RFACs, it is not as effective (against infantry, 
>JTL)
>> > just goes right through.
>     I fear the 50 cal is in this league, as it just goes right
>thru the poor grunt.
>     I have read that germans used the quad 20 flak on the eastern
>front, against russian infantry, with astounding success.
>
>Sorry, I really don't mean to spoil the fun. 
>
>Bye for now,
>John L.
>

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]