Re: GMS/P vs. IAVR

Brian Bilderback wrote:

>>IAVR range limitation is a limitation to effective range of aiming
over 
>>open sights.
> 
>This is a given.  But if you think about it, this already starts to
lead to 
>a larger IAVR warhead.  Since the designers know it'll only be useful
out >to a certain range, they only design it to attain that range (or a
little 
>extra), using the rest of the space to up the warhead.

What "rest of the space"? 

Oh - you mean those four pounds of mass with which you have already
exceeded the specs your buyer set up for the weapon you're working on,
and which you have to remove if you want to sell a single sample of the
weapon?

The *only* given thing in LAW design is that anything you design, no
matter how small and handy, is too large, too clumsy and too heavy for
the grunts' tastes. 

As long as the performance doesn't go down against the *main* intended
target (ie tanks and other AFVs in the case of IAVR and GMS/P - any
ability to engage infantry with those weapons are pure sideshows), the
manufacturer who builds the smallest weapon will usually be the one who
sells anything. The only things which can really stop him are political
considerations among the purchasing officer's superiors...

>>GMS/P attached a guidance unit to the warhead and a
>>sighting/tracking system to the launcher.
> 
>According to the DS II Rulebook (and it makes sense), "...virtually
all of 
>them are the 'fire and forget' type - operator guidance (either by
wire or 
>by radio/optical link) is no longer necessary.  Advanced
semi-intelligent 
>seeker heads have given the missiles their own target identification
and 
>discrimination capabilities...."  This means that ALL of the targeting
and 
>guidance hardware/software is right in the GMS.  

This equipment - all electronics - isn't very large even today, though;
we could fit *that* into a CG round if we wanted to, but...

>Furthermore, since they DO have a greater range, they WILL have >more
propellant, plus avionics

...extra propellant and maneuvering surfaces/thrusters (I thought those
were part of the avionics?) *is* large (or if they aren't they're
extremely expensive instead), and we can't fit them into a CG round
yet. Not at any affordable cost, anyway.

>>The warheads are the same (same damage in SG2 - no reason >>except
taste to differentiate one warhead from the other).
> 
>One does not necessarily follow the other.  Is a round from a HKP 5 
>identical to a round from a HVC 5 or a MDC 5

All three of these fire rod penetrators (yes I know the HKP description
says "slugs", but slugs lose kinetic energy a lot faster than rods due
to higher drag coefficients), so by the time they reach their target
they are about as identical as two 5.56 calibre rifle bullets from
different manufacturers are when removed from their casings :-/

>or a DFFG 5 or a SLAM 5? No - they're all very different (some more so
>than others). Do they draw the same number of chits? Yes (Although
>admittedly some with more validities than others). 

And here is your difference. The varying chit validities means that
they don't do the same amount of damage, whereas the SGII IAVR has
*exactly* the same damage as the GMS/P. In DSII terms, they both draw
the same number of chits *and* have the same validities (SGII doesn't
use damage chits, but they have identical mechanics against vehicles).

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