Re: [OT] Spearhead

--- Roger Burton West <roger@firedrake.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 05:24:05PM -0800, John
> Atkinson wrote:
> 
> >Something about most wargames--they want to rate
> >minefields as AT, AP, or mixed, with the mixed
> being
> >less effective than the pure.  That's bogus--the
> >density of AT mines is actually higher in the more
> >common mixed minefields (Block, for instance) than
> in
> >AT-pure disrupts.  It just has AP mines _also_.
> 
> I would assume this is for game balance - otherwise
> players are going to
> use mixed all the time.
> 
> Why doesn't the US Army use mixed all the time? (I
> can guess some
> possible answers, but I'd like to hear it...)

Time constraints.  If you can do the job with an
AT-pure field, then you do because it saves time.  I
mean, if you have a choice between putting in 500m of
mixed block or 1500m of AT-pure fix, then the choice
is less obvious.

Oh, and some idiot put out an executive order saying
we wouldn't use AP mine except in Korea and Middle
East.

John

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree