Re: Tech Levels and Quality was Re: DS3 design (long)

My interpretation of the DS2 rules is that both are comparable systems,
i.e. both are rifles and in DS2 terms the older weapon system is given
to the militia [National Guard, etc.] even though in reality some (not
all) NG units have better gear and, to a degree, training than the
regular forces.   
 
Also, the evolution of black powder to smokeless powder is IMO an
increase in tech level but the changing of doctrine from killing enemy
soldiers to only wounding them, therefore we use a smaller bullet, is
IMO NOT a change in tech level as both rounds are cased or case-less
chemically propelled lead bullets REGARDLESS of size.  Combat ranges
when from 50-m to 1000-m (During the US civil War) down to 300-m in WW2
and down to 50-m in Vietnam.  An EM propelled bullet aka Gauss round, or
gyro-jet or particle weapon would be an increase in technology.
 
We still use shells manufactured in WW2 for use in the 5-in guns, at
least we did in the late 90's.	The Navy was even proud that the US had
rounds in their inventory over 50 yrs old and still firing .  The M2
machine gun is the same design as the US had in WW2, firing the same
round from WW2!  And, the M60 GPMG is an Americanized Wermacht MG-34 or
42 (I don't remenber which).
 
THE POINT I was trying to make, though evidently not good enough, is
that tech levels are largely subject to interpretation by different
people.  For example GURPS uses chronological dating for increase in
tech level, though IMO the cased bullet from the 1930's is generally the
same as the cased bullet from today and performs in the same manner and
expectations.  Generally speaking  by my interpretation of tech level
there is no increase in tech level, though by the rules, there is a 2
tech level increase.  We can always examples that don't fit the mold.
 
I can debate the quality of US vs European vs Russian tanks, because I
generally don't agree with your assessment and will leave it at that.
 
Tom

J L Hilal <jlhilal@yahoo.com> wrote:

--- Thomas Westbrook wrote:
> What is meant by the tech levels. Ihe human brain is an antiquated,
> inferior, obsolete system, yet we still use them (I do anyway). 
> 
> Also, the governments of the world say that the older technology like
> the M1903 0.30 cal bolt action rifle is antiquated and obsolete
> though I can shoot twice as far as the modern 5.56 NATO, however, we
> still use the same technology.

This is a faulty analogy. In comparison to DS2 terms, these are two
separate weapon systems; one designed to fire a high-power round at
long ranges, while the other is intentionally designed to deliver a
much smaller round at shorter ranges but in larger volumes. A more
appropriate comparison would be between full-size rifles of differing
technology levels:

Part 1) the predecessors to the .30-'06 and .30-'03 rifles were the
.50-70 and .50-90. These were .50 cal. with 70 or 90 grains of black
powder, respectively. With the introduction of smokeless powder,
improved metallurgy, new breach-closure designs, and improved
manufacturing proccesses, the .30 cal. rifles were able to deliver the
range and power of the older .50 cal. black powder rifles.

Part 2) the invention of a new rifle action for the M-1 Garand allowed
in improvement in the firepower of the soldier at combat ranges. The
Garand gave little or no improvement over the M1903 at 1000m, but at
10-300m, two WW2 GI's with Garands had the firepower of an entire squad
of WW1 Doughboys with M1903 Springfields.

Part 3) if you want to look at assault rifles, then look at the
evolution of the Kalashnikov line. The modernizations in manufacturing
capabilities allowed significant changes to be made for the AKM in the
late 1950s, and further developments, including smaller ammunition and
the introduction of plastics, led to the AK-74.

Part 4) extenting this line into the (SF) future, one can postulate
that EM driven rifles might pack the range, accuracy, and penetrating
power of a modern .50 cal. M107 into a weapon equal in size and weight
to a modern .30 cal. rifle, and that an assault rifle built on the
same principles could pack the punch of modern .30 cal.'s into a weapon
comparable in size and weight to the M-16, SA-80, or AUG.

> Tech levels I generally think are an artificial divide on technology.
> The 5-in naval shell from WW2 still hurts as bad as a 5-in naval
> shell from today; sucks to be the APC or MICV that is hit by the 75mm
> or 90 mm HE shell; and even worse to be the PBI hit by the 50 lb.
> stone from a terbuchet.

This time, the statement is just plain incorrect.

Taking your example of the naval 5", there is a line of steady
improvement of the weapons from pre-dreadnought, to WW1, to WW2, to
Cold War, to today. This includes improvements in propellent, shell
design (ballistics and shape), explosive filler (or now submunitions),
metallurgy, manufacturing techniques, operation, and firecontrol, as
well as the basic design.

The weapons have steadily lengthened from 25 calibers to 32, to 38, to
45, to 50, with corresponding increases in muzzle velocity and range. 
Fuses have advanced from simple impact to delayed action. The timed
fuze allowed for limited DP use, and the introduction of the radar
proximity fuze made it much more effective. Advances in stabilization,
radar direction, and computer ballistics processing have increased the
accuracy. Overall, a modern 5" gun has the capabilities of a WW2 6" or
8" gun.

For the HE shell vs APC example, using an APC as the target is a straw
man arguement. A proper comparison would be against an actual armored
target, like a tank or armor plate target. The difference in the shell
between the WW2 M4's 75mm and the -E8's 76mm sounds small, but does not
take into acount that the 75 is a LVC, while the 76 is a HVC.

Additional, legitimate, comparisons show the same thing: Compare a
modern 155mm howitzer with its WW2 ancestor. The modern weapon is made
of improved materials, using more advanced processes, uses more
powerful propellants to shoot new shells carrying more powerful fillers
or new submunitions. Overall, the weapon is more accurate, so that the
same mission can be accomplished ith fewer shells.

A recent example of what I am talking about was the US's next
generation tank program in the 1990's. Three designs of cannon were
considered. First, an improved version of the current 120mm, similar
to the 55 caliber one being introduced on some Leopard 2s. Second was
a 140mm weapon, basicly scaled up from the current 120mm. Finally,
there was a new binary-liquid propellant 120mm. In testing, the BLP
120mm was found capable of matching the conventional propellant 140mm
in kinetic penetrator performance, but the overall system, including
propellant and ammunition, was comparable in size and weight to the
existing 120mm.

Overall, any camparison where only the effects of a hit on an unarmored
target are considered is intentionally misleading. Many of the
important considerations are what leads up to the hit, such as range,
accuracy, and the size and weight of the system, as well as the ability
of the weapon to defeat the armor (or shields, or hamster wheels, etc.)
of the target.

> DS2 didn't divide all the type of ammo into
> modern and obsolete but rather the apt reflection that modern tanks
> generally, but not always, will get better tools to find the enemy,
> hence the FCS option.

Again, false. NATO tanks of the 1980's, such as the Abrams,
Challenger, or Leopard 2, are significantly more capable than their
Soviet contemporaries, such as the T-80. This is due in most part to
the more advanced technology available to NATO. Computer processing,
electronics, materials, and manufacturing technologies all contribute
to making these NATO tanks more capable in every area important to
armored warfare on both a system-by-system and pound-for-pound basis. 
NATO could pack more capabilities into the same box than the USSR
could. Thus, a higher Tech Level.

J

		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!