RE: [SG2] APFCs in Stargrunt

On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:

> Brian spake thusly upon matters weighty: 
 
> > I more or less envision APFCs being controlled & triggered by a
> > combination of sensors, esp. IR, proximity decetors, and target
> > recognition systems, all controlled by a fast computer. Thus, a tree
would
> > trigger the proximity detectors, but fail to trip the IR or target
ID
> > systems, thus the computer wouldn't trigger APFC charges. A human
target
> > would trip the IR, prox and ID sensors, and eat a flechette load.
It's not
> > an entirely independant system - it draws from the vehicles overall
sensor
> > net, and is tied into the target ID system.
> > 
> 
> Hmm. And you thought they weren't fast enough to attack GMS? (grin). 
> I think in order to do the level or target recognition with multiple 
> sensors you are thinking of (reliably), the system had better be 
> blazing fast. If I have to lock up a target, determine it is not an 
> obstacle or friendly force, is a valid target, and engage, it has to 
> be fast. 
>

Granted - I was thinking that whatever else happens, computer power is
only going to go up and up...As for engaging GMS, there's still a gap
between the response times needed to engage infantry and the time needed
to engage possibly-supersonic or faster GMS missles. 

Someone mentioned putting APFC charges on the top deck of a tank to
defend
against top attack missles. Given that APFC is primarily an
anti-personnel
system, and the only personel usually on the top deck of a tank are the
tank's crew, I can see said crew objecting to the installation of
systems
that could kill them. (If you're riding in an open hatch when
side-mounted
APFCs go off, it's noisy and uncomfortable. If a top-mounted charge
goes,
it's messy and fatal...and simply ordering people to always ride
buttoned
up won't really work, people being people.)


> The problem with this is if the system uses systems like pulsed 
> doppler radar (looking for the doppler shift of a moving target), IR 
> (looking for the heat of a valid target), or shape (using visual 
> shape recognition) and requires more than one of these to 
> corroborate, I can see modern infantry evolving equipment around that 
> - IR masking battle dress (esp those in partial armour or full 
> armour), a ghillie suit (to break up your human shape, and some form 
> of portable battlefield radar jammer. Also, I'd be sure to evolve a 
> way where I could throw an arty shell or a man portable attack of 
> some type at the target vehicle and get it to detonate its APFC 
> belts. I'd do this repeatedly to strip the tank. Maybe fake pop up 
> silhouettes with IR signature packs. That would set off all three of 
> the above systems.  
>

And while you're setting up these complex systems, the target tank is
either charging to the attack or has moved away, forcing you to start
setting up somewhere else. You're better off just trying to kill the
tank,
and stay out of APFCs (limited) range.

In an ambush situation, some of these systems would be useful - esp. IR
shielding, ghillie suits, jammers. In a fluid combat situation, they'd
be
less useful - especially if, after the shooting starts, tank crews put
their APFCs on twitch mode - if it moves, looks vaugely human and
doesn't
have the right IFF, wipe it out. Less accurate target recognition, but
greater security...
 
> Anyway, I guess my point is there should be some way for good 
> infantry to bollix this and cause either no triggering or premature 
> triggering. 
> 
> Also, did you envision an APFC able to fire more than once per round?

Yes. It's whole racks of charges, on all four sides of a vehicle, with
only a couple needed, probably, to blanket any given area with a lethal
flecette load. Having multiple firing - even from the same side - seems
a
reasonable assumption.

Brian (burger00@camosun.bc.ca)
- http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Nebula/9774/games.html -DS2/SG2/misc-

> /************************************************
> 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
> **************************************************/
>