Re: SG2, using jetbikes in stargrunt.

>>>The best way to use them, is to allow them to dismount while suppress
>>(any idiot >can dsimount a bike, an APC is alot harder).
>>
>>It's not a matter of "hard"--dismounting an APC is easy.  It's a
matter
>>of it's dangerous out there, and the APC provides an illusion of
>>security.
>>
>
>Just a thought (not an [OFFICIAL] idea...) - if jetbike troops take a
>suppression while mounted, do an immediate reaction test (TL to be
>determined - ideas?) - if they pass, then they can continue moving, if
they
>fail then the have to do a "crash dismount" - get the bikes on the deck
>fast, probably with a risk of damaging some of them, and riders roll
off
>into whatever cover is available?
>
>Jon (GZG)

Never having had any form of actual combat experience or training, I
think
than John (Atkinson) has a good understanding of why troops cannot
dismount
an APC while it is supressed - The illusion of safety. Sometimes it is
more
than just an illusion, but considering the lethality of future weaponry,
it
often is just that - an illusion.

Moving on to the jetbike troops, I think they would be aware of the
total
lack of "protection" provided by the bikes - The best safety they can
afford is speed and mobility.  Shooting getting a bit too crazy? Then
move
elsewhere.  It would seem more risky to dismount in many cases.  I think
that it would be hard to come up with a good generalized rule.

How about something like this (hard to implement, but an idea
nonetheless)

If they are under attack by anti-vehicular weapons they must test to
dismount (leave the speed that will protect them) but can continue to
operate mounted.  If under attack by volume fire (saw, etc...) then you
must test to stay mounted like Jon (GZG) proposed - it is essentially a
high-flak environment that is especially dangerous to operate in.

Anyway, the idea is Volume of fire. Anti vehicular seems to be less
volume
but higher lethality, anti-personnel the opposite.

What do you think?