RE: [DS] Specialist Elements

Oops, to clarify before John A gets jumpy I misreferred to the M240 as
the
M249...doesn't change my comment though, the MAG58/M240 is still not an
APSW...it is replacing the M60E3 in the USMC and we (Australian Army)
used
it for quite a few years as an interim between the venerable M60 and
Minimi....
 
Owen G


-----Original Message-----
From: Glover, Owen [mailto:oglover@museum.vic.gov.au]
Sent: Thursday, 20 April 2000 9:56
To: 'gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU'
Subject: RE: [DS] Specialist Elements

For what it's worth... 

The GMS/L i would imagine as not a suitable weapon for PA.....remember
in SG
that PA carry GMS/P and this is one of those examples where the crosover
between DS and SG isn't seemless. Someone recently proposed GMS/P stats
for
DS...I personally don't see a problem with Mike in his background
utilising
them both in the same team at relevant costs though. 

As a side note I don't think the Minimi/M249 would fit in the APSW
category
- this equates to the SAW mentioned as an integral part of the Rifle
Team
and not factored separately... the SG PA Point Fire RFAC style weapon
would
be so I don't see a problem with this being carried in PA team either...

Cheers, 

Owen G 

> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Michael Sarno [ mailto:msarno@ptdprolog.net
<mailto:msarno@ptdprolog.net> ] 
> Sent: Thursday, 20 April 2000 9:21 
> To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU 
> Subject: Re: [DS] Specialist Elements 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "John M. Atkinson" wrote: 
> 
> > Michael Sarno wrote: 
> > > 
> > >	  Is it possible to create an infantry "weapons 
> element" that has both 
> > > GMS and APSW capability?	I can understand a possible problem with

> > > having both weapons in a militia or line element, but I 
> see no problem 
> > > with having a powered infantry element where one figure 
> has a GMS/L and 
> > > another has an APSW.  I'm figuring the point cost would 
> be the basic 
> > > element cost, plus the GMS/L cost, plus the APSW cost.  
> So for a powered 
> > > infantry element with GMS/L(Basic) and an APSW it would 
> be 40+20+10=70. 
> > > Does this seem right? 
> > 
> > Nope.  It's much more than additive.  Remember, GMS/L is 
> big enough that 
> > you loose your ranged infantry fire.  I wouldn't allow it, 
> full stop.  I 
> > don't recall any historical example with a MMG+ AND crew-served 
> > anti-armor weapon in the same 4-man team. 
> 
>     Well, it's probably more like a 3-man team.  But the idea 
> really stems 
> from SST.  I just remember Rico bounding around, shooting his 
> flamer and 
> launching tac nukes and HE.  I figured a single PA trooper 
> could handle his 
> own GMS or APSW, along with the ammo.  I just don't see PA 
> troopers in an 
> element swapping ammo or acting as loader for the APSW.  The 
> "extra" guys in 
> the element are probably just for security and to have an 
> extra set of sensors 
> to acquire targets.  I figured, it might be nice to give an 
> APSW to one of the 
> troopers in the GMS element. 
> 
> >  Remember, you've got a lot of 
> > heavy equipment with lots of ammo.	Speaking as someone 
> who's done my 
> > share of roadmarching with 'apsw' (M-240), I wouldn't want 
> to add in the 
> > burden of Dragon rounds as well. 
> 
>     I thought one of the ideas of PA was that it allowed you 
> to carry that 
> much more than line infantry. 
> 
> -Mike 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Michael Sarno 
> 
> To see a World in a grain of sand, 
> And a Heaven in a wild flower, 
> Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand, 
> And Eternity in an hour. 
>  -William Blake 
> 
>