Re: DS2: Design questions of my own.

At 5:39 PM -0800 1/16/02, John Atkinson wrote:
>
>BUT: Here's the problem I have from a doctrinal
>standpoint.  If you mount long-range anti-armor
>weapons on troop carriers you get confused as to
>exactally what you're driving.  Is it a troop carrier,
>or is it a tank destroyer?  Do you want to standoff at
>4 km and shoot at tanks, or do you want to drive up to
>the nearest covered/concealed position and offload
>your infantry and serve as close-range support?  Are
>you wasting your infantry riding in tank destroyers,
>or are you wasting this lethal long-range weapon by
>using it as an APC?

Both actually. The GMS-H's are there to deal with enemy armor, MICVs, 
or what ever the MICV's come across. Its a generalist vehicle. If my 
infantry are holding positions, being able to fire heavy weapons at 
range and lighter weapons (be it GMS-Ls, Small arms, apsws, or IAVRs) 
as the enemy comes closer is good. The Infantry can't carry around 
enough firepower to really deal well with heavy armor. That MICV 
stays next to that squad of infantry and they work in concert.

5 stands (3 rifle, 1 APSW team, 1 GMSL team) of infantry and 4 micvs 
makes a potent force in this form. Mix in 2 more platoons and a 
treble of Mortars in their own tracks and you get a decent force that 
can close and assault positions, defend a position from enemy armor 
or perform a move to contact type battle.

Additional components are platoons of size 3 tanks with MDC4s and 
other types of support. Air defense is in the form of similarly 
tracked vehicles with Enh Area defense.

>Me, I figure GMS/Hs are what you have a D Company for.

Why split it up? Why not give every unit the weapons?

--
Ryan Gill	  |	   |	     rmgill@mindspring.com
		  |	   |
		  | O--=-  |
		  |_/|o|_\_|
		  / 00DA61 \
	       _w/|=_[__]_= \w_
	      |: O(4) ==    O :|
	      |---\________/---|
	       |‰|\	    /|‰|
	       |‰|=\______/=|‰|
	       |‰|	     |‰|