RE: [DS3] Dirtside Accelerator for Infantry

At 11:22 PM +0100 9/8/04, CS Renegade wrote:
>
>Moving targets? An evading target gets a secondary D8, but that
>would apply regardless of the nature of the shell fired at it.
>Is this a real-world consideration (i.e. only modern APFSDS has that
>sort of range)?

Its dependant on fire control computers and not the rounds for the most
part.
>
>One criticism normally levelled at my group's FT2 games is that we
>use too small an area (typically 48 x 72mu, which is a squeeze even
>for cinematic movement). Using a cm scale for DS2 we have an area
>of 120x182 available, with games played sometimes down and sometimes
>across the table. Open areas between obstacles are often in the
>region of 50-80cm, and no-one goes thrashing through terrain because
>it takes too long to get anywhere, so encounters generally will be
>in the open bits. We could try a ridge down the middle of the
>table...

More hills and more hummocks in the middle. Add more small tree 
clusters and farm steads. Bits of felt with a lichen on it for height 
is great for a clump of trees/brush for soft cover and obscurement.

>
>Doesn't DS2's HKP concept presume far higher barrel pressures? As to
>why this might be better than sticking with the HVC design, the
>weapon would be smaller and the ammunition would take up less space
>and be less volatile. (The exotic HKP propellants might even be fed
>from a tank rather than loaded as a cartridge or charge.) Do modern
>MBTs still have hand-loaded rounds, and if so, how close to the

Yep.

>limits of manual handling are they? Wouldn't MBT design and
>logistics both be easier if the round was just the penetrator and a
>half-litre of skunkworks moonshine?

Currently manually handled weapons in the 105/125mm range are faster 
than autoloaded weapons. You really don't have the space for a good 
sized ammo load and an autoloader that can load at any elevation 
angle. So, your autoloader requires the main gun to elevate to a 
specific point to reload. That slow's down your rate of fire big time.

>
>True, but I like the idea of a gun that can fire a variety of
>different rounds - AP, AT, GMS, LAD, mirror smoke, snapshot drone
>reconnaissance... At some point in the range of mass driver weapons
>the calibre has to go up, or there's no point in having mass driver
>artillery.

Mass driver artillery will be the more flexible weapons with large 
caliber projectiles as they'll be able to carry payloads, sensors, 
and brilliant munitions.

>
>As the HKP is a development of the HVC, I'd view ground-effect and
>then gravitic mobility as technological steps forward from wheeled
>and track-laying systems. They aren't parallel developments and a
>force will only utilise an earlier system if it is unable to buy /
>build the latest equipment. An HVC just strikes me as an anachronism
>on a hovertank.

Hover vehicles are not so new. Vietnam had them. The biggest issue is 
that mass reaction causes some problems with large caliber weapons 
and a small hover vehicle.
>
>I've no objection to APSW (or similar weapons) being shifted to
>very low effectiveness by the imposition of cover, but they should
>be highly effective against infantry advancing over open ground.

Well, cover tends to do very little against a 7.62mm round. Trees are 
not much help. Nor are stone walls.

>  >>>
>I would expect a cannister round that burst on leaving a
>contemporary HVC to have a very limited range and thus only be
>useful as a final defensive munition.

The vietnam era Canister could be set for Muzzel Action or a delay 
based on range/time function on a traditional artillery fuze. There's 
little reason to differentiate in the future when this is a standard 
item from the 70's.

>By contrast, a sabot-riding bundle of flechette darts leaving a
>DS2 MDC would be travelling _very_ quickly, and given the same
>cross-section / weight ratio of a full-sized rod the darts could
>be expected to travel just as far.

They'll loose velocity very quickly however based on size/weight.

>
>So if my high-speed flechette isn't sufficient, what vehicular
>weapon could be devised to defeat power armour? Given the above

HE with good sized fragments. 155mm HE can defeat armored vehicle 
armor quite nicely. It did so in WWII and will do so now. Some tests 
of 155mm HE rounds on some armored targets showed very large rents 
and cuts in the armor that would either mission kill the target or 
severely degrade performance. Against a PA trooper, well, does he 
like not having a leg or arm?

ICM would also work nicely against PA. So would larger point 
detonating rounds like 25mm and such fired at indiviudals (easier 
with PA as they're bigger and more obvious than your regular 
crunchie).

>table, all we have at the moment are APSWs and other PA, and I'm
>a bit sceptical about anything less than an HMG ("class 0.5")
>standing any chance at all. The APSW doesn't appear to be described
>anywhere other than on pg 11, but I have always taken it to include
>all the smaller-calibre MGs too.

Yep, needs some correction. However you can cut a tree down with a 
7.62mm MG. Likewise you could punch through a brick wall with it. 
German MG42s were doing a number on US army M3 halftracks in the 
frontal arc through the engine bay armor, through the firewall and 
into the crew space with 40's ap ammo. I'd hate to see what a 30 
caliber round in the future would do at moderate ranges.

-- 
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
-		  Data Center Operations Group		      -
-		http://web.turner.com/data_center/	       -
----------------------------------------------------------------
- Ryan Montieth Gill		       One CNN Center SE0813 E -
- Internet Technologies   --   Data Center Operations Manager  -
- Hours 11am - 7pm Mon - Fri	    (8Sdc, 10Sdc IT@3Ndc)      -
- Cellular: 404-545-6205	     e-mail: Ryan.Gill@cnn.com -
- Office: 404-588-6191					       -
----------------------------------------------------------------
-	      Emergency Power-off != Door release!	       -
----------------------------------------------------------------