Scouts

Ryan took issue:
>I'm interested by the suggestion scouts need armour. I can see this
>versus small arms, but since pretty much every infantry force in DS
>terms (and in SG often) bears either IAVRs, GMS/P, GMS/L or a
>combination of the above (and some have APSWs), I don't think armour
>1 or even armour 2 scouts are protected that well.
>Ferrets/Dingos/Scimitars/etc.... they might stop small arms, but 
they
>won't stop an IAVR or GMS/P.

Its a question of being so vulnerable that even a guy with a machine 
gun can fire at you from a pretty good distance.

[Tomb] This I agree with (Hi David, when's the Badger MkIII out?). 

 IAVRs, well, you've 
got to be 400 meters (4") for those to be a problem. GMS's well, 
there are far fewer of those out there.

[Tomb] Pardon? Ever seen standard SG2 TO&Es? I seem to see one in 
just about every squad. And that's often ON TOP of IAVRs. GMS/P are 
common and GMS/L appear fairly often too. 

 And they have to get through 
your ECM. With a size one and really good ECM, a scout vehicle is 
going to be a tough target.

[Tomb] And I'm arguing in favour of this. But a wheeled armoured car 
can't run from grav or AC tanks! You don't have the terrain/mobility 
to manage. 

 Getting them to shoot a little bit isn't 
always bad. It reveals their position.

[Tomb] Getting them to MISS is the important part. 

>Don't give them anti-armour capability - you don't want to encourage
>them to try to take on tanks. Don't give them heavier weapons than
>self-defense ones to engage infantry. Their purpose is to see the
>enemy and not be seen, to call arty or air assets into play, to
>execute sniper missions against enemy personel and equipment, etc.

Well, one of the roles of scouts is sometimes anti-scouting. Or 
counte-recce. You want them to be able to ambush the red force scouts 
so you have to give them something more.

[Tomb] Or do you? Snipers.... APSWs, maybe give them some IAVRs (fine 
use from ambush since the vehicles are very concealable too), 
artillery and air observation.... I think they'll do just fine in 
ambush.

 In a heavy force, it really 
makes sense as then you can always have a detachment of tanks backing

[Tomb] In a heavy force, I'd hope my scouts are significantly faster 
and lighter. I know they'll be able to call on big brother (tanks) 
and artillery assets. I don't want to turn them into tankers. That 
kind of mentality leads to dead people - just like AIFVs thinking 
that slugging matches with tanks are a winning proposition.

>Their light size/capability also reduces the odds of them being used
>as a "commander's guard".

It also makes it harder for them to do their job in the first place. 

[Tomb] Why is 10 scout vehicles in a platoon going to render the job 
tough to do? Small, fast grav bike/buggies will allow very rapid 
mobility, quiet movement, and will probably allow sensors to function 
better. This is bad how? And having 10 vehicles lets you cover a fair 
amount of ground. You have limited dismount capability, but a patrol 
of 3 can get 3 or 4 guys to go check out hamlets/etc. And remote 
sensing will be quite a bit improved by then (look at what you can do 
now!). And the trade off is small vehicles, hard to detect, light to 
transport, and a fewer number of scouts (slightly), which translates 
to a smaller logistics tail. The only item that is high is cost 
(assuming expense of grav). 

Training is a far better means of preventing bad use of equipment 
than hamstringing the equipment. After all, they've got their asses 
hanging out in the wind for all of red force to shoot at. They've got
to have some capability.

[Tomb] Yes, speed, stealth, ECM, decoys, smoke, covering artillery 
and manouver units. Their capability is to avoid detection and where 
that fails, to break contact quickly and efficiently even under fire. 
While your Ferrets are puttering along in the mud getting hosed by 
anyone with a GAC/1 or a DFFG/1, the grav bikes are headed for the 
horizon with foot to the floor. They're smaller, much faster, have 
better caps re water/swamp/etc and can move evasive (try that with a 
wheeled vehicle). 

I prefer a light heavy format so that the 
really small light stuff can search and spot with out being seen with 
a slightly larger vehicle to help fight when things go into the 
toilet.

[Tomb] That's what I bring light mobile forces (armoured infantry and 
light tanks) for. Light tanks make a nice reaction force - fast, and 
with enough punch to slow up larger armoured forces and to do in 
forces of enemy scout vehicles, mech infantry, etc. Again, not 
designed to stop dead a main force thrust, but having a specific 
purpose (harriers/flankers/rapid strike). I don't want my very 
expensive, very well trained, very sneaky scouts to be out 
gunfighting if I can avoid it. That's what I have line doggies for. 

[Tomb] Like most discussions, this comes down to philosophy, 
background, and the kind of campaigns/games you play. Or, in reality, 
to the kind of budgets, logistics, and other practical concerns that 
would apply. I think the GZGverse argues for light forces, smaller in 
number, and if you're gonna spend to ship troops across space, you're 
sending good quality troops and gear because transport costs make 
sending poor troops or crappy gear insane. And since you want to save 
your limited lift cap for serious hitters (MRLS, MBTs, etc) and some 
gropos and support assets (various apc variants/mortars/GMS 
platforms), you don't want to take up too much space with scouts, 
engineers, etc. You want them. You need them (no engineers and no 
scouts equals very dead). But you want to have the right balance and 
not attrit your striking force by using too much of your lift cap for 
support elements. So making them light, fast, and encouraging them to 
stay alive is important.