Prev: Re: Some GMS Thoughts [SG2] Next: Re: (SG2] Orbital Insertion (an alternative approach to calculat

Re: Some GMS Thoughts [SG2]

From: Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@s...>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:15:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Some GMS Thoughts [SG2]

Andrew spake thusly upon matters weighty: 

>     Remember that GMS and other weapons fired from a aerospace craft
hit on
> the vehicle top side as well.

Yep. OAs would be fired by land units mostly. 

 I'm not sure of this, but I'm under the
> impression that top armour of ground vehicles is the same as the side
> or one less than frontal armour. The underneath of ground vehicles is
> definitely TWO levels lower than frontal armour.

Although there is an argument for making Top armour two less in 
earlier period scenarios (giving rise to OAs) then one less in more 
modern vehicles. As for the bottom, there is an argument with grav 
vehicles to give them equal or at worst one less point of armour 
(especially given any flight capabilities). Pity the vehicle design 
system wasn't a tad more elaborate to let the player design his 
armour levels (if you want to build an armour 5 front, armour 1 rear, 
tank destroyer, so be it.....). 

> >Laser Homing GMS are available in GMS/L, GMS/H, and GMS/P. LH GMS
> >missiles may be fired from a standard GMS launcher as the beam riding
>is a
> missile function. They are expensive however.

>     Well, I think they should be cheaper in points cost and real world
> credits, dollars, pounds, ECUs or whatever. Laser homing missiles are
> smart than fire & forget missiles.

I was referring to this as an add-on capability, though I've now seen 
the work on earlier age laser homing missiles. Perhaps they are 
indeed cheaper. You do make a good argument. 
> >Laser Obscuring Aerosol Dispensers (LOADs)
>     Firing the smoke dischargers should be as effective. I am assuming
> the smoke dischargers fire effective smoke that blocks all sensors.

I would assume that in many cases this would be a LOAD instead of 
'smoke'. (Probably has EM blockers too). But some SDs may just 
discharge plain old vanilla smoke (and stuff emanating from burning 
vehicles would only be normal smoke). 
> >Anti-Missile Kinetic Defence System (AMKDS)
> >An AMKDS is a high precision, short range, high accuracy radar suite
> >coupled to a direct fire, high rate weapon. The vehicle designer can
> >hook the system to a designated missile defence only weapon, or to
> >another more general purppose weapon. The advantage of designating a
> >weapon system for this is that its use WON'T stop you firing during a
> >round and that your normal engagement WON'T stop your missile defence
> >from working. The weapon must be a modified HEL (capable of short,
> >rapid pulses) or an RFAC. (I don't think any other types are
> >appropriate).

>     Size 1 and 2 MDC would be OK as well. A case could be made for
DFFG 1 &
> 2 as well.

GAC should have been on the list. 

I don't believe that the ROF on MDCs is enough (its fast, but 
probably not as fast as an RFAC, pulsed HEL or GAC).  My idea of DFFG 
is that it isn't a rotary or high speed cannon as it packs so much 
whack into one shot. Maybe it is... ? 

Whehter one allows MDCs or small DFFGs to perform this role is a 
personal flavour thing. I don't think so, but I can see the 
arguments. If you like it, go ahead!  
Thomas Barclay		     
Voice: (613) 831-2018 x 4009
Fax: (613) 831-8255

 "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot.  C++ makes
 it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg."
 -Bjarne Stroustrup

Prev: Re: Some GMS Thoughts [SG2] Next: Re: (SG2] Orbital Insertion (an alternative approach to calculat