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

Brian Bilderback wrote:

>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.

Only if the ADS vehicle itself was the target, or it had a clear line
of sight to the round. IAVR rounds don't go very high, and I suspect
that any troops "protected" by an ADS system which tries to take out
low-flying short-range rockets will have rather strong opinions...
provided they survive the ADS fire, of course :-/

>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?

Yep.

>If this is the case, an ADS vehicle would be less capable of defending
>ITSELF than is a regular vehicle that is PDS-equipped.

Hm. I can't find any rules forbidding you from equipping the ADS
vehicle with a PDS for close-in self-defence... it can't use ECM while
the ADS is in Active mode, but it seems to be able to use PDS.

>Doesn't seem to quite make sense.

No? Put it like this: Lighting up a powerful active targetting system
is a *very* good way of attracting lots of enemy fire... it's true
today, and I don't see it becoming less true in the future...

>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.

[snip]

>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.

Exactly. According to what you write above his platoon is "practically
swimming in Gouda". If today's forces plan to use the very tactic you
consider so "cheesy" (ie, using light units with massive ATGM firepower
specifically to kill ADS vehicles), why on earth should the rules
prevent it?

>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?

"...but they also noted that this isn't easily accomplished in the
field with
their CURRENT equipment :-/" (emphasis added). Germany CURRENTLY has no
such vehicles, but they're working on it.

Unfortunately the "PDS" designers are just as aware of this possibility
as everyone else. The next generation of Active Protection Systems (or
Defensive Aid Suits, or whatever name you prefer for them) are unlikely
to have this problem.

Regards,

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