Re: Infantry Walkers! and More Grav Bikes

	Greetings!

On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:

> What I think of as an "infantry" walker would be too small to be a 
> GMS/H carrier. I think of them (similar to grav bikes) as 0.5 size 
> vehicles. A size 1 walker would be a bit larger and I consider size 
> 1-3 walkers combat walkers (size 2 ATST) , and size 4 and 5 are 
> transport walkers (I'm looking at using an ATAT model - huge- for 
> SG2).  

	With our figure conversions, a Size 1 walker looks nice with a
GMS/L.	A Size 2 walker is certainly buff enough for a GMS/H.  But this
is
relative, I think.... :)

> To me, a size 0.5 infantry walker is a platform on which MLPs, SAWs, 
> GMS/Ps (maybe GMS/L), HMGs, GAC/1 or RFAC/1, autoGLs, and a few other 
> such things might be mounted (but obviously not altogether). I give 
> them 3 spaces. Not big enough for a GMS/H.  
> 
> SImilarly, a grav bike is size 0.5. With 3 spaces, It could mount a 
> centerline RFAC/1. But I charge a space for the crewman in this case 
> as the bike is short on interior space. And if the bike has room for 
> an extra passenger, there goes another space. Leaving 1 for a SAW. 

	We just stick Grav Bikes with a SAW.  As an RFAC/1 is something
akin to a .50, that just conjures up nightmarish images! :)

> Another interesting Grav Bike idea. Three or four bike hunter/killer 
> formations.  one or two unarmed scouts (perhaps using the extra space 
> to justify enhanced or even superior sensors to hunt for targets 
> during pop ups and such) and two gun bikes with a centreline GMS/L, 
> RFAC/1, twin SAW, DFFG/1 or HEL/1 and fire control.  Used similar to 
> Kiowa/Cayeuse and Cobra/Appache combos. (On a smaller scale). Good 
> for hit and runs against light armour and against infantry or PA. 
> (Not for protracted battles - assault gun tactics - hit, then run). 
> Can also call arty from the scout bikes. 

	Hmmmmm....  Now THERES an idea.

> Especially things with low armour. Put an MBT up against infantry 
> without specialist anti-armour (Armour 3-5 versus penetrations at 
> most D12x2) the MBts look pretty darn tough and surivable. Especially 
> if they have good ECM or PDS to foil missiles. And put decoys aboard 
> and that adds more protection.  

	Yeah.  We had a few games were the infantry pissed away their
GMS/Ps and IAVRs, and had a size 4 tank running around with
anti-personnel
charges going off left and right.  It was a bit scary.

> I picture GMS/P as the max that normal guys can carry and it hits no 
> harder than an IAVR (yes volley fire of IAVRs sucks... don't get so 
> close... use your infantry in front of you to deter this). GMS/L I 
> view as TOW like small launchers (Considering doubling the Harlequin 
> SAM launcher at a GMS/L Team for my OU until someone makes tripod 
> GMS/L). GMS/H I see as equivalent ot Hellfire or the like - a nasty 
> nasty missile, but not particulary portable - maybe on a small 
> wheeled chassis like my GMS/H Air.  Or in a dedicated AA battery. 

	This all makes sense, and is pretty much how we view things.

> lifespan of even heavy AFVs. I think infantry with GMS/L (TOW type) 
> would be encumbered.... good for static defense, but not carried 
> normally. 

	Or maybe carried in for a special ambush or dropped in for a
specific purpose.  US Light Infantry are known to hump some *heavy*
equipment for certain missions.  I know *I* wouldn't want to hump a
GMS/L
around all over the countryside!

	Ken