Re: PDS vs. IAVR/LAW/SMAW/etc.

That STILL leaves the problem, of course, of how to allow for ADS fire
vs 
IAVR's.... unless you just do the same thing, but that's kinda pushing
it. 
Seems more likely that and ADS should just plain shoot the sucker down.

Along the same lines, what about the rule that ADS accuracy is
diminished 
the more GMS' it has to take out in one attack? Does this includes
attacks 
on the ADS vehicle itself?  If this is the case, an ADS vehicle would be

less capable of defending ITSELF than is a regular vehicle that is 
PDS-equipped. Doesn't seem to quite make sense. However, if that IS the 
rule, is presents a beautiful way of taking out an ADS.  Launch a whole 
flock of GMS' at once - in active mode, the ADS would have only it's own

fire to protect it, since it's Stealth ability and ECM are nil while
it's 
active. It c an only take out so many, and the rest would have an easy
time 
hitting it. And GMS' are pretty cheap.	You could equip one specialized 
platoon, maybe fast, small GEV's or VTOL's (Which could then stand off),

specifically as ADS hunter-killers.  Mind you, this does, IMHO, border
on 
cheese (Heck, it's practically swimming in Gouda), but does seem to be
well 
within the rules.

One interesting note on this tactic, I may have mentioned this before,
but I 
have a friend who was a LAV-25's gunner in a Mech Recon platoon.  We
once 
discussed Soviet ZSU's, and he informed me that they were target #1 for
his 
unit.  In any combat situation, his platoon would have deployed and
expended 
every ATM they had in their arsenal to take the beast out.

As for the dilemma the Germans had of the difficulty of timing two shots
so 
well, why not mount a light vehicle with a dual launcher system whose 
trigger circuitry was designed to fire with the delay already programmed
in?

Brian B

----Original Message Follows----
From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: Re: PDS vs. IAVR/LAW/SMAW/etc.
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 19:10:10 +0100

Brian Bilderback wrote [about letting PDS "count as" APFC against
IAVRS]

 > Hmmmm.... hey, that's a good idea.  Mind if I use it?

No problem - that's why I posted it <g>

Laserlight wrote:

 > Oerjan wrote:
 > >You're way behind. The Russians have beaten all of these in AFV
 > >applications.
 >
 > That's according to Russian reports, right?	Is there
 > independent corroboration?

Does the German army count? <g> They've tested at least one of these
systems (IIRC the ARENA, but don't quote me on that - 'twas some time
since I read that Soldat und Technik, and my German isn't the best),
and it seems to have lived up to the claimed specs. The Germans found
that it was possible to defeat the "PDS" system by firing a pair of
ATGMs with a split-second delay (again IIRC less than 0.2 seconds), but
they also noted that this isn't easily accomplished in the field with
their current equipment :-/

Adrian Johnson wrote:

 >Ignoring the Slammers, one could suggest that perhaps the rocket (or
 >whatever) propulsion systems of these weapons are so zoomie that the
 >projectile travels too fast to be engaged.

Can't do that from a carried weapon unless the projectile is guided
somehow, unfortunately - you either get piss-poor accuracy or an
injured gunner if you try :-(

Later,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
   What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com