Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: was Re: [SG3]: What if?

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lWould a
WWI biplane work as well as an F-22 Raptor?  The difference in spotting,
propulsion, material and weapon technology is so vast that they really
aren't comparable, and yet only 90 years separates the two levels of
technology.Um  would the raptor be able to lock on to a ww1 biplane,
cause I think he may be too basic to lock on to, a good emp blast would
make mr raptor a flat raptor, can his guns train on to the biplane or is
he just moving to quick.

james.

P.S jon where did you get the resign buildings eg hallways from that
appear in SG 2.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Binhan Lin 
  To: gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu 
  Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 9:42 AM
  Subject: Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: was Re: [SG3]: What if?

  Another good example of technology removing humans from direct combat
- aircraft.  UAV's are cheaper, smaller and can be run for extensive
periods of time by rotating remote crews.  Since the aircraft doesn't
have to carry a crew and all the attendant atmosphere, food, space
considerations, it can be loaded with more fuel and munitions or made
much smaller.  Also Humans are limited to short periods of about 9G's
while hardware can be designed for sustained levels of 9G's and short
durations of up to 50 G's or more.  The US Air Force is fighting tooth
and nail to hang on to the dwindling supplies of human manned aircraft
as remote piloted vehicles take over 50% of their missions.

  Would a WWI biplane work as well as an F-22 Raptor?  The difference in
spotting, propulsion, material and weapon technology is so vast that
they really aren't comparable, and yet only 90 years separates the two
levels of technology.

  As you mentioned - use whatever background you like to game then PSB
it. For instance, aliens could invade in the next decade and electronics
are useless due to giant electromagnetic jammers that they use and we
have to resort to mechanically operated chemically propelled weapons in
our war against the Space Squid or whatever. 

  --Binhan

   
  On 2/6/08, john.tailby@xtra.co.nz <john.tailby@xtra.co.nz> wrote: 
    I'll agree that this is certainly a way that warfighting
technologies could go.

    At the point that you have all warfighters with servo assisted
suits, personal battlecomputers running their own network of remote
sensors and weapons, why isn't the human sitting back safely in their
bunker or armoured command vehicle running a bunch of stand off smart
weapons?

    It's certainly not how the GZG universe looks like it is imagined
where it's still very much human centric person to person combat.
     
    In the kind of environment you describe the worst thing you could do
is fire your personal weapon because they would instantly confirm your
location to hundreds of enemy remote sensors and you would get a barrage
of anti personell smart weapons delivered in counterbattery mode.

    You would need to set up your weapons in remote locations so they
could fire and not draw fire back at you.

    Also if both sides have similar technologies there would be whole
levels of warfare between sensor drones and the hunter drones trying to
protect their own sensors and kill the enemies. EM pulses and jamming to
kill drones and blind signals could be very common as well.

    Quite a lot of this is reflected by the fact that the players have
the ability to get up walk around the table and observe eveything from
all angles. So the player does have something of a coordinating battle
computer about them.

    Also defensive technologies and doctrines will keep pace with
sensors. If tanks are detected by heat signatures from hot engines
coming out from their top, how long before tanks get some kind of IR
sensor blanket to mask the heat signatures or tanks that mount the heat
exchangers some place other than the top rear?

    What is highlighted by this discussion is that a low tech force
might be almost completely ineffective against a higher tech force.
Killed by smart bullets before they ever new they were in range.
     
    ----- Original Message ----
    From: Binhan Lin <binhan.lin@gmail.com>
    To: gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
    Sent: Thursday, 7 February, 2008 6:24:18 AM
    Subject: Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: was Re: [SG3]: What if?

    Again the "foundations" of your assumptions could also change. For
instance, the ground that people fight over may not be different, but
"LOS" may very well be different - neutrino or X-ray detectors may see
through buildings and regular geological features but diffract in unique
ways on metal or high density ceramics, UAV's may be micronized and
every soldier equipped with a loadout of 100's that are considered
expendable and thus provide 360 degree views from altitudes up to
hundreds of meters or can be sent into buildings and tunnels or other
difficult to see places.

    Redefining LOS means that weapons, such as self-directed propelled
grenades may be the round of the future - a soldier merely designates a
target using a remote UAV, points his weapon upward and fires a 20mm
round that then directs itself to the target.

    LOS may also be redefined as velocity of projectiles increase - In
Desert Storm 40 to 60 foot thick sand berms were no obstacle to the DU
penetrators fired by M1 tanks. Irqai tanks were located by the heat
signature of their exhaust floating above the tank - there was no direct
LOS with the target. If infantry weapons can achieve that type of
kinetic energy in a projectile, your current standards for cover - brick
walls, ditches, hills, buildings are moot and provide roughly the same
kind of cover as a bedsheet.

    Having a human in the loop is really only required if you have some
reason to discriminate a target for some reason- i.e. conserve ammo or
reduce friendly damage.  If a computer can scan, track and fire at
hundreds of targets simultaneously, it should probably be in charge of
firing.  For instance, if a hypervelocity missile is coming at you,
human reflexes can't operate fast enough to engage a defensive system -
it should be computer run.  If a soldier is presented with 50
simultaneous targets and has the capability to shoot at all 50 at the
same time, it would take a significant amount of time for a human to
verify each target and pull the trigger 50 times..  A computer would
process the target requirements and fire at all 50 within seconds. 

    Humans will play the role of "tactical" co-ordinators - their
weapons will be mere extensions of their thoughts.  Humans will provide
the parameters, but will leave the actual firing and target selection to
computers.

    --Binhan



    _______________________________________________
    Gzg-l mailing list
    Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
    http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l

------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

  _______________________________________________
  Gzg-l mailing list
  Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
  http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l