Re: Scouts

At 6:48 PM -0400 8/13/02, kaladorn@magma.ca wrote:
>
>[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.

Not every rifleman has a GMS. Every rifleman has something that can 
damage a soft skin vehicle. Its about giving them some protection. If 
you want super sneaky scouts, get some NAC SAS or Ghurkas to sneak 
out and slit some Eurie throats.

>  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.

Granted. But if you're up against Grav, then you need to have more 
than guys out doing recce in vehicles. You need air search assets. 
Grav can move far too fast for ground recce to do so well. Like as 
not, they'll be coming to you. Wheeled or something else, its not as 
big a deal. However, you're going to hear GEV coming from a bloody 
long way off. They aren't going to surprise anyone as scouts. Wheeled 
are as quiet as they come. Noone really knows what grav sounds like. 
I figure youve got some kind of rotational field generating coil that 
makes a subsonc humm that'll have ever farm dog for miles howling.

>  Getting them to shoot a little bit isn't
>always bad. It reveals their position.
>
>[Tomb] Getting them to MISS is the important part.

Which with a Sup ECM and Size 1 Signature and a hull down position, 
it's likely to occur if its going to happen at all.

>
>>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.

Not advocating turning them into tankers. What I'm saying is that in 
a heavy force it doesn't much makes sense to have scouts that are 
underarmed and underarmored. Someting of a proportion of armement. A 
heavy force is more likely to go up against a heavy opponent. 
Likewise the cav units are as well.

For WWII as an example, it doesn't do your scouts much good if they 
can't get past a single road block of a few guys on a key road. Or if 
they are able to locate a key bridge, hold it until relieved. There 
were more than a few engagements where British Recce unit that had 
the punch of light tanks were able to at least hold positions until 
the Churchills and Cruiser tanks got there to help.

>[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).
>

there isn't too much of a difference in the logistics tail between a 
HMMWV and a Daimler Ferret. They both have similar sound signatures. 
One is far more likely to survive a light ambush.

Also, I have to point out, in light divisions, the unit recce is far 
more likely to be sent on hard fast rushes to grab something. Better 
if they are able to carry as much armament as possible. But then of 
course, you can take the General's argument that has confounded the 
trooper in the field who doesn't really know what he's doing. Such 
troopers come up with things like extra guns and shields for the 
loaders on the Cav tanks, ACAVs and GunTrucks. All with weapons and 
armor they scrounged. Their TO&E doesn't list it as required. So the 
poorly imaginative brass get's its undies in a wad when they see such 
things. Never mind that the man on the spot really needs the extra 
kit.

Point being, I think scouts should be as bear as possible or at least 
have some kind of armor. If they get stuck in a peacekeeping role 
where they're supposed to use finesse and they can't they get stuck 
out on a limb.

>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).

These could be Grav ferrets. Something. I'm saying rather than a 
jeep, an armored car. Something heavier than 18 gauge sheet plastic 
between your scouts and HV rounds coming at them from some militia 
that weren't where they were supposed to be.

I personally like wheeled vehicles because its far easier to support 
them. Since the NAC is using them as part of their TO&E, it makes 
sense as a scout vehicle. Airportablity isn't an issue.

>[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

Ok, take the Briths Army's FCLV programme. Its based around something 
like the HMMWV, but its far more survivable than they are when it 
comes to mines and small arms. They are built to protect the crew 
from mine explosions particularly well. Such that the troops inside 
will come out with a headache rather than in body bags that someone 
scraped the remains into.

This is exactly the kind of light vehicle you seem to advocate. But 
still want to seem to stick them into a Land Rover. Thre brits plan 
to replace some Saxons, FV432s, Spartans and Landrovers with this 
platform. Its a compromise between all, and saves them a bunch. It 
reduces the signature and isn't far off from the ferret if you add a 
manned turret vs a remote weapons station. Its really not far off 
from the Humber Scout of WWII vintage. Something with a short 
wheelbase, wide track, weapons station on top and low signature is 
great for recce. I don't think you realize just how small 4 wheeled 
armored cars can get. My dingo is tiny. Put a more powerful 
power-pack in something of a similar layout and you've got a pretty 
nice package for the crew.
-- 
--
Ryan Gill	       rmgill@SPAMmindspring.com
----------------------------------------------------------
      |        |		   |	     -==----	  
      | O--=-  |		   |	    /_8[*]°_\	   
      |_/|o|_\_|       | _________ |	    /_[===]_\	  
      / 00DA61 \       |/---------\|	 __/	     \--- 
   _w/|=_[__]_= \w_    // [_]  o[]\\   _oO_\	     /_O|_
  |: O(4) ==	O :|  _Oo\=======/_O_  |____\	    /____|
  |---\________/---|  [__O_______W__]	|x||_\	   /_||x| 
   |s|\        /|s|   |s|/BSV 575\|s|	|x|-\|	   |/-|x| 
   |s|=\______/=|s|   |s|=|_____|=|s|	|x|--|_____|--|x| 
   |s|		|s|   |s|	  |s|	|x|	      |x| 
'60 Daimler Ferret '42 Daimler Dingo '42 Humber MkIV (1/3)