Re: IAVRs

--- Tomb <kaladorn@fox.nstn.ca> wrote:

> [Tomb] This is likely incorrect, or a bit of a red
> herring at best. > I'm thinking that a weapon that
fires projectiles > _much_ faster than
> conventional rounds (in order to inflict good damage
> using the old > KE=0.5MV^2 philosophy)would probably
have barrel > wear issues, heating > issues, and if
nothing else, battery issues (it > takes a lot of EMF
> to sprint even a ferrous sliver up to "ludicrous
> speed"). Also, with > more advanced built in systems
for sighting, for > gyrostabilization, etc,
> you may need other spares not currently required. 

Heh.  Mostly batteries--everything else would be
trivial compared to batteries.	Although I still think
that refraining from setting off explosions inside
your weapon solves most of your heat problem.

> [Tomb] Ammo weight is going down. Agreed. The amount
> of ammo an > infantryman is carrying is going up at
exactly the > same rate. > The amount of weight
carried into combat by modern > infantry wouldn't > be
all that unfamiliar to one of your favorite >
Byzantines. The 
> limitation here is human capability. Yes, an
> individual round is > smaller. But now I fire them
in bursts of 10 at a > time. And now > I carry enough
rounds I can have a _real_ shootout. > But the weight
> I as an end user carry ends up about the same. 

Probably true.	You are correct in saying that the
basic load of ammunition has stayed the same weight
for a long time, whether it's the "40 rounds in the
cartrige box and 20 in the pocket" of an ACW rifleman,
or 210 rounds of 5.56mm or anything in between.  

> Grenade launchers are built into the weapons of many
> nation's standard riflemen.
> 
> [Tomb] This is true. Note this only gives you a +1
> FP which suggests > that the grenades of the time
are not terribly > effective relative to > the armour
(they have half the lethality of an AAR > with FP2).
They 
> are small (by the looks of them) and probably have a
> limited explosion > and fragmentation danger zone
and are probably well > stopped by modern > ballistic
armours. 

Also true--these are pretty much OICW-style 20mm
grenade launchers with prox-fuzed frag grenades, far
more effective against unarmored troops than the body
armor common on the battlefields of 2183.  I'd handle
a large-caliber grenade launcher in the M-79 or M-203
style the same way Los handles it in his Portugese
MTOEs--as a FP d6, Impact d10* support weapon.

> [Tomb] Yep. Just as you could issue every other
> piece of wazoo kit to > every soldier. And some
people have done that. > Sometime you want an
> interesting example of "Light Infantry" and
> kit-carrying stupidity, > read the book "Bravo Two
Zero" by Andy McNabb. This > bunch of gung ho
> SAS dudes went into Iraq carrying everything
> INCLUDING the kitchen > sink. It didn't help.... 

I'm an American.  I'm familliar with the mindset that
says "if you're a Real Man, you are going to hump 90
pounds 100km with no sleep" and thinks that that's
realistic mission planning.  But an 8-lb buzzbomb is
not  that much in the way of overkill, especially for
mechanized/motorized troops that don't do long-term
dismounted operations.	Your packing list should be
different from Special Ops guys who are going to try
hump all over mountains for 2 weeks with no resupply.

> Now, I don't disagree with you that you would
> probably issue these > in some frequency to regular
troops. Assume the IAVR > of 2183 is a > pretty
advanced piece of gear in order to defeat the
> ECM/EW of the > time, and in order to defeat the
armour, and in > order to operate in > both AT and AP
roles. 

Or it's so bloody stupid that there's nothing to jam.
Just a plain optic recticle.  

So your jerkwad colonist on > Nowhere IV won't
> necessarily have 5 of these per squad. 

Probably not--militias are historically short on
anti-armor weapons.  Although I might point out that
as near as I can make out from watching CNN, 50% of
Afghanistan's adult male population has an RPG.

And in many > nations' forces, > the GMS/P in the
squad will reduce the need for the > IAVR. In SG2
> terms, you've got a weapon that can fire across the
> board with no > degradation in effect - I'd want
more of my troops > carrying spare > ammo for this
instead of carrying IAVRs, but that's > just me. 

True, but.  I don't like GMS/Ps.  I'd rather have
GMS/Ls.  Only a few of them, concentrated as a signle
weapons squad in the platoon.  For single squads, the
IAVR is a substitute.  Remember, my 8-man squads have
2 SAWs and 6 IAVRs (everyone not carrying a SAW)
instead of 1 SAW and 1 GMS/P.  I figure that for
hunting tanks, I've got tanks.	Of course, my MTOEs
are also almost all mechanized units also.  Light
infantry bores me to tears.

> You _might_ ripple fire a volley of IAVRs at a tank.

Against a size 3 or 4 tank with armor 3 or 4, you'd
almost have to, and still not be guaranteed a good
solid hit.

> resupply. Too often in one-off games, people do
> "gameresque" things > that the actual people (were
the game a real > situation) would not do
> because they have to fight (potentially) in other

This is why it's nice to have a referee.  

Gameridiot: "I want this squad to volley-fire all five
IAVRs at that squad in this clump of trees."
Ref: "Your troops won't do that."
Gameridiot: "But there's no rule against it!"
Ref: *Sigh.*  "OK, your LT tells your squad to shoot
all their buzzbombs at that clump of trees.  Staff
Sergeant Fitzhugh replies '6, this is 2, your
transmission is breaking up,' and says something under
his breath about stupid fucking officers.  You loose
your activation.  Jack, it's your turn."
Jack:  "I'm activating this squad and calling for
artillery."
Gameridiot: *bursts into tears, starts sucking his
thumb, goes back to playing WH40K.*

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals