Re: [DS] Some questions from this weekend

--- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:

> >But since we're talking about Dirtside II where
> 50-100m is .5-1" it's 
> >fairly trivial.
> 
> That's a large enough potential deviation to turn a
> "perfect" placement of 
> the sheaf (ie., covering the entire platoon) into a
> marginal hit (hitting 
> only a few elements in the platoon).

Now, iven that that is a 50m deviation in the air,
when it starts dispensing 'smart' bomblets, is it
enough to affect where those smart bomblets fly?
 
> >Personally, modern infantry have nasty, sharp,
> pointy
> >teeth inside about 300m so any tanker that tries to
> >get that close to people with modern AT weapons
> should
> >just be ruled dead of terminal stupidity.
> 
> I design those teeth for a living... Today's "IAVR"
> equivalents don't kill 
> a modern tank frontally, unless they're very lucky.

True.  But in an "overrun" attack there are more
opportunities for flank and rear shots (sure, you're
driving straight at the infantry you see, but if the
platoon has three squads on line and you're driving
towards second squad, maybe first squad can shoot
you), as well as belly shots (when cresting unmodelled
terrain) etc.

> And why would the tanks be restricted to machine
> guns only? Main guns can 
> be *quite* effective against infantry as well,
> particularly if they're 
> capable of firing beehive-style rounds... not to
> mention what a DFFG can do 
> to a foxhole at close range.

Not against troops at 50m or less.  You can't track
'em fast enough.
 
> The US Army in 'Nam seems to have been pretty
> successful when 
> close-assaulting well dug-in enemy infantry in the
> jungle with light 
> armoured vehicles, BTW - and while the North
> Vietnamese didn't have as good 
> AT weapons as we have today, the Sheridans and ACAVs
> assaulting them didn't 
> have much armour to speak of either :-/

Close-assaults I've read of tend to be dumping huge
volumes of 152mm and MG at relatively short range,
with any "overruning" tending to come after the VC
have decided that arguing with the Blackhorse was  bad
idea.  I may be wrong.
 
> >Especially considering that according the the dumb
> grunt reading over my 
> >shoulder,
> >a 4-man fireteam of 'Merican infantry could easily
> be carrying 8 AT-4s 
> >without breaking a sweat.
> 
> You're the one who wanted to reduce the 60-lb combat
> carry; 2 AT4s per man 
> is about half that load already. Then you have
> rifle+ammo, water and 
> possibly body armour on top of that as
> "must-haves"... if you're not to 
> exceed 60 lbs per man, who carries the SAW and the
> M203? Not to mention the 
> fancy battlefield electronics? <g>

He was also mentioning that his combat load is pretty
close to his 160lb body weight.  :)

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better