Re: (Stupid BMP tricks)

You wrote: 

>, the gun on the BMP gun remains one of the most powerful ones on an 
IFV. >What do you expect them to do put a tank main gun on an APC? Just 
about >every IFV in the world has a autocannon of some sort. Very few 
have the >extra bonus of a meaningful HE lobber. Just what infantry 
need in a >number of differnt scenarios. The 100mm semi-automatic gun 
is designed >forfiring HE rounds. It doesn't fire HE rounds, but does 
carry the >missile.

Actually, I don't like encouraging infantrymen to play tanker in the 
first place.  Prefer to split the vehicles into AT and APC versions.  
Why?  Coz if you engage with the TOW at 3.5km like God and the 
designers intended the TOW to be used (Why?  Max effective range on a 
T-72's main gun is 3km.  Hence you did your anti-tank ditch 3.4km from 
a significant terrain feature, put your ITVs behind it, and you've got 
a significant chunk of the NATO defense plan for West Germany), your 
infantry has to walk 3.5km under fire to get to where they are useful.	
If you get close, you're wasting a lot of range, and then someone tries 
to get into a slogging match at point-blank range.  That works against 
Iraqis with ageing T-55s and Iraqi-manufactured ammo that can't 
penetrate tinfoil.  It won't against an army that could find it's arse 
with both hands and a flashlight.  

But anyway, I do like the point about HE rounds.  Nothing says loving 
like light artillery.  :) How, I wonder, would I simulate this in 
Dirtside?  Maybe a LVC--Low Velocity Cannon.  As HVC, but 6" less on 
each range band, 1 less chit vs. armor, but 1 more vs. infantry than 
HVC, plus you get a GMS/L system for half the capacity points?	Only 
comes in sizes 3-5, after all it's gotta be big enough to be 
worthwhile.

Let's see.  That makes the BMP-3 work out to 

2xTeams 8(Dunno the capacity, so using general guideline)
LVC/3	9
RFAC/2	4
GMS/L	1

For a total of 22.  Assume 6-man team and it's a size four vehicle.  
Wow.  This needs work.

>I had a chance to check these things out in Kuwait. In their attempt 
to >make everybody happy they've gone ahead and bought a bunch of these
>things from the Russians as well as chinese artillery, Russain T90s 
and >US M1A1 tanks) The Kuwaits drive thes ethings all over the place, 

If their doctrine is like their equipment selection. . . Nations you 
DON'T want to be responsible for finding spare parts for.  

in >harsh conditions (they're not very caring with their stuff), and 

If it breaks you can always buy a new one, right?

>Reliability of the vehicle and it's lethality rest almost exclusively 
in >the hands of who is using it. You put M1A2s and M3s into the hands 

Russian stuff is better about that--it's designed to be operated by 
conscripts with little training and less education.  Or at least it 
used to be.

>many people don't get when they start harping about technology being 
the >key factor of army effectiveness.

What was that some author said about a man with a crossbow who knows 
how to use it in the right place is worth ten armored divisions that 
are broken down, lost, or late?

John M. Atkinson