Re: Low Tech Scenarios

You wrote: 

>>Nao, can't believe that a black-powder weapon has same impact as a 
>>gauss rifle.	Larger caliber, but _much_ lower muzzle velocity.  
Leave >>it d8 or so.  
>
>If you read some American Civil War history you would find out how
>mistaken that statement was. A one ounce Minnie ball was something of 
a >A-- kicker. They did so much damage that the idea of "removing the
>bullet" was a rare thing, they just cut off the limb that was hit
>(because the damage was so great).

OK, I'm coming from a Traveller background, where your 4mm gauss rifle 
has a muzzle energy of 3,500 joules, from a muzzle velocity of 
3,740mps.  At close range that will punch a couple cm of steel.  
Compare to a muzzle velocity of what for that one-ounce Minie ball 
(accent over the second i).  The whole amputation thing was becaue of 
the low technology level of medicine at that time--a smashed bone 
_would_ infect.  If being able to kill people were all impact measured, 
everyone would have a d12.  After all, a weapon that's not lethal tends 
not to be adopted.  

>>Feh.	Not likely.  We already discussed this. 
>
>Sorry John, I believe you are still wrong. If agreed upon, or part of 
the >scerario they can be classed that way. After all a Navy Seal with 
a Knife >would scare any normal man, but me with a knife makes you look 
for the >missing dinner plate. 

And a Zulu with a spear coming at me would make me reload a bit faster. 
 See:  Rorke's Drift.  A SEAL coming at me with a knife doesn't scare 
if I've got about two seconds warning and a locked and loaded M-16.  He 
dies like anyone else.	And if someone is five meters from me, I _can_ 
put a three round burst through the ten-ring.  I'm not an Olympic class 
shooter, but if you run right at me, I'd have to work to miss.	Edged 
weapons against missle weapons loose.  Every time.

Rommel's words on this subject may prove illuminating.	From his book, 
"Attacks", describing an action as a platoon leader in 1914.

    "Once again we rushed the enemy in the bushed ahead of us.	A 
little group of my former recruits came with me through the underbrush. 
 Again the enemy fired madly.  Finally, scarcely twenty paces ahead I 
saw five Frenchmen firing from the standing position.  Instantly my gun 
awas at my shoulder.  Two Frenchmen, standing one behind the other, 
dropped ot the ground as my rifle cracked.  I still was faced by three 
of them.  Apparently my men sought shelter behind me and couldn't help 
me.  I fired again.  The rifle misfired.  I quickly opened th magazine 
and found it empty.  The nearness of the enemy left no time for 
reloading, nor was any shelter close at hand.  There was no use 
thinking of escape.  The bayonet was my only hope. I had been an 
enthusiastic bayonet fighter in time of peace and had acquired 
considerable proficincy.  Even with odds of three to one against me, I 
had complete confidence inthe weapon and in my ability.  As I rushed 
forward, the enemy fired.  Struck, I went head over heels and wound up 
a few paces in front of the enemy.  A bullet entering sideways, had 
shattered my upper left leg; and blood spurted from a wound as large as 
my fist."

Doesn't sound like a bayonet charge terriffied those two Frenchmen.  
And if it doesn't scare Frenchmen, who does it unnerve?  In the closing 
notes to the chapter, Rommel notes, "In a man to man fight, the winner 
is he who has one more round in his magazine."

>My thinking, if you would have asked, was that you run a stripped down
>team for the best possible reason: balance the scenario!!!!!!	There 

Well, yeah. . .  Gotta do that.

>loud mouths at home. You don't send any but the best on deep 
penetration >missions, and it's no time to train them. 

The kind of units that go on deep penetration missions don't have dead 
weight.  

>Yes it is a good idea, but there aren't too many side with those kinds 
of >troops so I'm left with NATO. I certainly can't call them NVA, 
besides I >think NATO troops are that good and smart enough to do it 
that way.

No, they're smart enough to bring enough firepower to do the job.  
That's less 'manly', but a lot easier on the troops, no?

>I'm interested in small unit actions, set in the present. Does anyone
>else have any? I would certainly enjoy hearing about them.

Hrm. . . Russians trying to bull their way through Chechens?  Green 3s 
with lots of firepower, going up against blue/orange 2/1s with not much 
but rifles and RPGs.  

John M. Atkinson