[d20 Modern] Ideas about a military style campaign

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

>>
Sure they're easy to hit, they're as big as 10-wheeler trucks or
bigger.
How many times do you think a competent soldier would shoot at
something
that big and miss? But they're not easy to penetrate. So they should
have big damage reduction. Of course that's how AD&D should have
handled
armor in the first place but...
>>>

Interesting you say that. We took a page from the midnight setting and
use the d20 equipment bonus as damage reduction instead of adding to
defense value. So a typical U.S. soldier has a defense of 11 or 12 (1
or two points of defense depending on class level) and 6 points of
damage reduction (that tactical armour at the heavy end of the medium
armour chart).

For realism purposes we use a massive damage threshold of 10. That
means most bullets from ak's or m-16's or better rifles have a good
chance of forcing a fort save (dc 15) or you go to -1. This means that
bullets are dangerous and you never really want to get hit with one.
This also means that U.S. soldiers are rarely one shot killed by
bullets or shrapnel from grenades or rockets or what have you. This
seems to reflect what I hear coming back from Iraq regarding how
amazing current armour is at sustaining life of soliders. I understand
that casualty rates are low considering the intensity of the conflict.

I read recently that of soldiers who get injured, the fatality rate is
only 1 in 10 as opposed to 1 in 4 during the vietnam war. I'm sure
that's still much to high to the men and women fighting, but from a
'let's study the armor' point of view, I think it is a sign of the
effectiveness of current U.S. combat armour.

In our playtesting, we have found this system works quite well. We
roleplay a squad of U.S. soldies fighting in Eastern Germany in 1996
during the re-unification of East and West Germany - a reunification
that is blocked by the Warsaw Pact. Normally we're outnumbered 3:1,
but the armour makes a big difference.

Back to the tank point, we're just finding that every one hits all the
time, even with RPG-16's, which hardly seem that accurate a rocket
launcher. Are they even fin stablised? Out to 50 feet, sure, but at
ranger over 100 feet is it really that accurate to shoot? I actually
don't know, so if anyone can enlighten us with some real life feedback
I would appreciate it.

I did talk to a fine fellow once who had served in the Army in
Britain, and he said the idea of shooting at helicopters like the
Blackhawk with shoulder fired 'dumb' rockets like the LAW or RPG-16
was officially pooh-poohed. It would never work, was the official
line. Of course, the incidents in Somalia showed that not to be true,
but again, maybe that was due to the sheer volume of rockets being
shot. I imagine that shooting at a Blackhawk hovering 400 feet away is
not much different than shooting at a Tank 400 feet away. Blackhawks
are bigger, aren't they? Size, not weight.

Again, tanks for the input.

 

[ty]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

"GI Hoe" <ralek_blok@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:9be3766a.0412301048.1ab0aceb@posting.google.com...

> I read recently that of soldiers who get injured, the fatality rate is
> only 1 in 10 as opposed to 1 in 4 during the vietnam war. I'm sure
> that's still much to high to the men and women fighting, but from a
> 'let's study the armor' point of view, I think it is a sign of the
> effectiveness of current U.S. combat armour.

Yes, as well as an improvement in medical trauma treatment.

> Back to the tank point, we're just finding that every one hits all the
> time, even with RPG-16's, which hardly seem that accurate a rocket
> launcher. Are they even fin stablised? Out to 50 feet, sure, but at
> ranger over 100 feet is it really that accurate to shoot? I actually
> don't know, so if anyone can enlighten us with some real life feedback
> I would appreciate it.

In actual combat, the hit percentages go down dramatically, especially with
troops who have not been under fire. I recall one account from the Gulf War
where a US Marine TOW gunner fired three TOWs and missed (despite the fact
that the missile has a >90% chance of hitting on the proving ground). The
problem was that he was so nervous he flew the first three into the ground.
He did hit and kill the target with the 4th missile, however.

--Ty

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

GI Hoe wrote:
[...]
> I read recently that of soldiers who get injured, the fatality rate is
> only 1 in 10 as opposed to 1 in 4 during the vietnam war. I'm sure
> that's still much to high to the men and women fighting, but from a
> 'let's study the armor' point of view, I think it is a sign of the
> effectiveness of current U.S. combat armour.
[...]

What is the effect, of tactical armour becoming more and
more common, on gun/bullet types? I'd imagine that it would
encourage the opposition to prefer weapons which are better
at penetrating, whereas earlier that was a low priority.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

On 30 Dec 2004 10:48:36 -0800, ralek_blok@yahoo.ca (GI Hoe) carved
upon a tablet of ether:

> Back to the tank point, we're just finding that every one hits all the
> time, even with RPG-16's, which hardly seem that accurate a rocket
> launcher. Are they even fin stablised? Out to 50 feet, sure, but at
> ranger over 100 feet is it really that accurate to shoot? I actually
> don't know, so if anyone can enlighten us with some real life feedback
> I would appreciate it.

Using M72 LAW rockets (which are Vietnam War-era technology) I can hit
a stationary car every time at 100-150m, even witha mild crosswind. I
doubt an RPG-16 is worse than this, and at this range an RPG-7
certainly isn't.

> I did talk to a fine fellow once who had served in the Army in
> Britain, and he said the idea of shooting at helicopters like the
> Blackhawk with shoulder fired 'dumb' rockets like the LAW or RPG-16
> was officially pooh-poohed. It would never work, was the official
> line. Of course, the incidents in Somalia showed that not to be true,
> but again, maybe that was due to the sheer volume of rockets being
> shot. I imagine that shooting at a Blackhawk hovering 400 feet away is
> not much different than shooting at a Tank 400 feet away. Blackhawks
> are bigger, aren't they? Size, not weight.

They are, and the hits were from volume of fire as much as anything
else, though a hovering helicopter shouldn't be too hard a target.

> Again, tanks for the input.

That's one horrible pun.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

Peter Knutsen wrote:
>
> GI Hoe wrote:
> [...]
>
>> I read recently that of soldiers who get injured, the fatality rate is
>> only 1 in 10 as opposed to 1 in 4 during the vietnam war. I'm sure
>> that's still much to high to the men and women fighting, but from a
>> 'let's study the armor' point of view, I think it is a sign of the
>> effectiveness of current U.S. combat armour.

Those rates are a little high, in both cases. In Iraq there's been
20,000+ medical evacuations to Germany by the occupation, vs ~1200 or so
deaths. I don't /think/ they've had 8,000 psych evacs.

> [...]
>
> What is the effect, of tactical armour becoming more and more common, on
> gun/bullet types? I'd imagine that it would encourage the opposition to
> prefer weapons which are better at penetrating, whereas earlier that was
> a low priority.

In Iraq? The resistance uses RPGs, or roadside bombs. Explosive
force to tear the limbs apart and destroy sight and hearing. Apparently
the old 12.7mm machineguns don't have a problem with the armoured
Hummer, or the soldiers body armour: but then, they also KO tanks on a
fairly regular basis.
I guess 7.62 long rounds penetrate body armour alright too, dunno.
There must be a few GPMGs floating around Iraq. I dare say the AK74s
could do the job at short range with an AP round; though you loose the
fancy tumble-spread wound channel.

The assault rifle seems to have dropped in status to act purely as
a suppresion weapon, give the guys with the heavier stuff time to line
up a better shot. Basically a liability for the Iraqis, makes them a
less guilt inducing target.

I'm not sure what the serious armies of the world are planning on
doing about defeating body armour. I'd imagine rather alot of troops
will be armed with high power sniper rifles, and the regular troops laid
out with AP rounds or told to aim at the hips or face.
<shrug> perhaps they'll switch to chem, super-stun grenades, or
20mm man portable semi-automatic short range rocket launchers.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.

 

[ty]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

"tussock" <scrub@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:41d694dc@clear.net.nz...

> I'm not sure what the serious armies of the world are planning on
> doing about defeating body armour. I'd imagine rather alot of troops
> will be armed with high power sniper rifles, and the regular troops laid
> out with AP rounds or told to aim at the hips or face.
> <shrug> perhaps they'll switch to chem, super-stun grenades, or
> 20mm man portable semi-automatic short range rocket launchers.

The US Army is planning to move to the 6.8mm (.270 Winchester) calibre
round, as it gives much more stopping power (about comparable to the mighty
..30-06) and effective range. The professional US (and British) military has
produced an entire army of sharpshooters, and the assault rifle is not
adequate to take advantage of such skills. Journalists in Iraq and
Afghanistan say they can always tell when the Americans or Brits are
firing -- they fire single shots, while the bad guys fire automatic bursts.

A little discussed aspect of the 6.8mm round is that it will almost
certainly go through most current body armor.

--Ty

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 01:16:31 +1300, tussock <scrub@clear.net.nz>
carved upon a tablet of ether:

> In Iraq? The resistance uses RPGs, or roadside bombs. Explosive
> force to tear the limbs apart and destroy sight and hearing. Apparently
> the old 12.7mm machineguns don't have a problem with the armoured
> Hummer, or the soldiers body armour: but then, they also KO tanks on a
> fairly regular basis.

I don't know what sort of vehicle you consider to be a tank, but .50
BMG rounds haven't been tank-killers by most definitions of the term
since 1941 at the latest.

> I guess 7.62 long rounds penetrate body armour alright too, dunno.
> There must be a few GPMGs floating around Iraq. I dare say the AK74s
> could do the job at short range with an AP round; though you loose the
> fancy tumble-spread wound channel.

I don't think that the 5.45x39mm is really going to cut it as an
armour-piercer, any more than the 5.56x45mm NATO is. Nor will the
7.62x39mm, though the standard ball load with its steel core will be
better than most assault rifle loads at close ranges. As you note,
7.62x51mm NATO and 7.62x54mmR GPMGs will remain effective.

> The assault rifle seems to have dropped in status to act purely as
> a suppresion weapon, give the guys with the heavier stuff time to line
> up a better shot.

They've been that for quite some time, though the paid-up memebers of
the Cult of the Rifleman, which includes the upper ranks of most
western militaries' infantry corps are taking a loooong time to face
up to it. The normal tactical deployment at the section platoon level
reflects this, with riflemen existing primarily to defend the
machineguns, grenade launchers, and Forward Observers while they get
the killing done.

Third world combatants are going even further with teams of three guys
with assult rifles and an RPG - the riflemen protect and carry ammo
for the RPG operator. I believe in some places this is being replaced
by two RPG operators and one rifleman. As these guys have more combat
experience in the sort of wars current than any western army I think
this may be the best indicator of how best to deploy modern infantry
weapons.

> I'm not sure what the serious armies of the world are planning on
> doing about defeating body armour. I'd imagine rather alot of troops
> will be armed with high power sniper rifles, and the regular troops laid
> out with AP rounds or told to aim at the hips or face.
> <shrug> perhaps they'll switch to chem, super-stun grenades, or
> 20mm man portable semi-automatic short range rocket launchers.

Were I equipping an infantry force I wouldn't worry too much -
soldiers will still be suppressible by 5.56mm assult rifles because
their limbs and face aren't armoured, and the real killing is done by
other weapons anyway. It's likely to be quite an issue for spec ops
teams, though - it's only a matter of time before decent modern armour
become common enough that terrorists and thrid-world 'elites' start
wearing it routinely.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

"Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:jaift0hnrgn1bgi2b666cdb3j3a2e5rpeu@4ax.com...
> Third world combatants are going even further with teams of three guys
> with assult rifles and an RPG - the riflemen protect and carry ammo
> for the RPG operator. I believe in some places this is being replaced
> by two RPG operators and one rifleman. As these guys have more combat
> experience in the sort of wars current than any western army I think
> this may be the best indicator of how best to deploy modern infantry
> weapons.

Reasoning such as this would suggest that the US should empty a clip at
a time like the Afghan mujahadeen do, which they have been doing in the
"third world" wars which they have fought for the last two decades ....

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 13:54:14 -0600, "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> carved
upon a tablet of ether:

> The US Army is planning to move to the 6.8mm (.270 Winchester) calibre
> round, as it gives much more stopping power (about comparable to the mighty
> .30-06) and effective range.

No, the US special forces are looking at it. That's a very different
thing from 'the US Army'. Also, the round is _not_ the .270
Winchester, but a custom round made by Remington of considerably less
power.

Googling, I see the 6.8mm SPC fires a 115-grain bullet at 2800 ft/s,
while a common .270 Winchester load is a 150-grain bullet at 2800
ft/s. That makes the .270 30% more powerful, and the longer bullet
will tend to have a flatter trajectory as well. Looking at Barnes'
_Cartridges of the World_ I see that the 6.8 SPC is very close in
performance to the old '.280/30 British', a round designed shortly
after WWII by the British as an intermediate round (like the 7.92
Kurtz and the 7.62x39mm) based on the lessons of WWII. This round was
killed by the USA's insistence on a full-power .30"/7.62mm round as
the NATO standard. IOW it's only taken the US military about 60 years
to wake up to basic ballistic reality - 6.5-7mm is about the ideal
calibre for rounds intended for military use.

For those GURPS-philes out there that means the 6.8 SPC will do about
6d+1 pi damage. In d20 Modern terms it should probably do 2d8 rahter
than 2d10, as it's more in the 7.62x39mm class than the
7.62x51mm/.30-06 class.

> The professional US (and British) military has
> produced an entire army of sharpshooters, and the assault rifle is not
> adequate to take advantage of such skills.

We'll ignore the minute-of-arc accuracy that the M16 family is
routinely capable of then, shall we?


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[ty]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

"Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:13jft017v0ct716qq32nldv3f2bho4kam0@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 13:54:14 -0600, "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> carved
> upon a tablet of ether:
>
> > The US Army is planning to move to the 6.8mm (.270 Winchester) calibre
> > round, as it gives much more stopping power (about comparable to the
mighty
> > .30-06) and effective range.
>
> No, the US special forces are looking at it. That's a very different
> thing from 'the US Army'.

The 6.8x43mm SPC was conceived by a US Special Ops soldier in a quest to
improve the terminal ballistics of the M4 Carbine. The U.S. Army
Marksmanship Unit and others assisted the Spec Ops team heading the project.
The main objective was increased lethality, but the new cartridge is also
significantly more accurate. The Special Forces have "looked at it" -- a SF
soldier designed it -- but I understand that the US Army is very seriously
considering it for the entire force. Economics will (of course) play a major
part in the decision. I suspect that the round will be adopted for the
combat arms at least. It would be a bad idea, but I can see the Army keeping
the 5.56mm around for support arms.

> Also, the round is _not_ the .270
> Winchester, but a custom round made by Remington of considerably less
> power.

Yep, it is a Remington round, the 6.8 x 43mm SPC. Early in the process, I
heard it was the Winchester round and I had that in my mind. And I happen to
like the Winchester (it's a great hunting alternative to the 30-06), so I
was probably guilty of wishful thinking...

The Remington cartridge is a cut down Remington .270 . The reason for the
reduced cartridge length appears to be so that existing 5.56mm rifles can be
adapted to use it. It is less powerful than the mighty 30-06 (or its cut
down cousin, the once NATO standard 7.62x51mm). But it also has ~50% more
muzzle energy than the 5.56mm round (~1700 ftlbs vs ~ 1100 ftlbs). It has ~3
times the energy of the 5.56mm at 500m. (source --- Bal Cal ballistics chart
at http://www.constantforce.com/index4.htm )

<snip of anti-US military rant>

> > The professional US (and British) military has
> > produced an entire army of sharpshooters, and the assault rifle is not
> > adequate to take advantage of such skills.

> We'll ignore the minute-of-arc accuracy that the M16 family is
> routinely capable of then, shall we?

<shrug> You may ignore what you wish. But you miss the point. The problem
with the M16 is not accuracy per se, but its limited killing ability at long
range. Which is of course where sharpshooter skills are particularly useful.
To get the best out of highly trained marksmen, you need a round that can
kill someone at long ranges. The 5.56mm round ain't it. Do you understand
now?

--Ty

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

Rupert Boleyn wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 01:16:31 +1300, tussock <scrub@clear.net.nz>
> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>> In Iraq? The resistance uses RPGs, or roadside bombs. Explosive
>>force to tear the limbs apart and destroy sight and hearing. Apparently
>>the old 12.7mm machineguns don't have a problem with the armoured
>>Hummer, or the soldiers body armour: but then, they also KO tanks on a
>>fairly regular basis.
>
> I don't know what sort of vehicle you consider to be a tank, but .50
> BMG rounds haven't been tank-killers by most definitions of the term
> since 1941 at the latest.

Treads are quite vulnerable to any such sustained fire, plus all
those fancy aerials and optics that let the crew see what the hell's
going on. A blind or immobile tank is KO'd, by most definitions of the term.
Works much the same with all the old RPGs the resistance use in
Iraq; can't penetrate the tanks armour, can take them out of action.

Now I wouldn't suggest for a moment that the life expectancy of HMG
crew vs MBT crew is all that hot.

<snip: cool>
Also, world peace would be good. 8]

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 09:33:06 -0600, "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> carved
upon a tablet of ether:

> The 6.8x43mm SPC was conceived by a US Special Ops soldier in a quest to
> improve the terminal ballistics of the M4 Carbine. The U.S. Army
> Marksmanship Unit and others assisted the Spec Ops team heading the project.
> The main objective was increased lethality, but the new cartridge is also
> significantly more accurate. The Special Forces have "looked at it" -- a SF
> soldier designed it -- but I understand that the US Army is very seriously
> considering it for the entire force. Economics will (of course) play a major
> part in the decision. I suspect that the round will be adopted for the
> combat arms at least. It would be a bad idea, but I can see the Army keeping
> the 5.56mm around for support arms.

I doubt it will see general adoption. It'll cost a lot, and unless all
the machineguns are bought in the calibre it'll make logistics a pain.
Besides, there's little compalaint about the performance of the
5.56x45mm round out of full-length barrels such as those on the M249.
The complaints are largely the result of using high penetration, long
range optimised bullets (which heavy bullets that don't break up or
tumble quickly) in short barrels (and heavy bullets need long barrels
to gain useful velocities), with the result that the modern issue
weapon (the M4 carbine) has a very short range over which the current
bullets break up and inflict major damage reliably. If the Vietnam era
bullets were still in use this wouldn't be as much of a problem
(though spec ops teams in places like Afghanistan would still need a
weapon with more reach).

This new round/weapon combo will be of little benefit to the average
soldier, and will weight more and have more recoil as well. On top of
that, when it comes down to it, spending up on infantry small arms
really isn't a very good use of cash.

> Yep, it is a Remington round, the 6.8 x 43mm SPC. Early in the process, I
> heard it was the Winchester round and I had that in my mind. And I happen to
> like the Winchester (it's a great hunting alternative to the 30-06), so I
> was probably guilty of wishful thinking...

I like the .270 Winchester too, and IMO it's got more potential than
many realise (for some unknown reason it's hard to get heavy bullets
for it even though you can get them for 7mm rounds that are
insignificantly larger in bore). That said, I prefer the .30-06
myself.

> The Remington cartridge is a cut down Remington .270 .

..30 Remington according to my googling. I don't recall them doing a
..270.

> The reason for the
> reduced cartridge length appears to be so that existing 5.56mm rifles can be
> adapted to use it. It is less powerful than the mighty 30-06 (or its cut
> down cousin, the once NATO standard 7.62x51mm).

Which, BTW, has the same ballistics for its standard ball loading as
the M2 Ball load used in the .30-06 in WWII.

> <shrug> You may ignore what you wish. But you miss the point. The problem
> with the M16 is not accuracy per se, but its limited killing ability at long
> range. Which is of course where sharpshooter skills are particularly useful.
> To get the best out of highly trained marksmen, you need a round that can
> kill someone at long ranges. The 5.56mm round ain't it. Do you understand
> now?

Yeah. Now show me an army that can use this capacity at rifleman
level. Studies fairly consistently show that most people can't locate
enemy soldiers past about 150m with any reliability, and if you can't
see 'em you can't hit 'em with aimed fire. That being the case we're
back to machineguns, grenade launchers, and FO directed artillery fire
to drown the whole area the enemy is in. None of this requires a
better small arm round.

That said, were I in the military still I'd love such a round, but I
fancy myself good enough a shot and perceptive enough to be able to
get some use out of it. I have little confidence in infantrymen as a
group, however. Most people, especially once the shooting starts and
the adrenaline starts pumping, are lucky if they can use an AK-47 to
it's full potential, let alone a 600m target rifle.

Most armies went into WWII fielding entire units of marksmen, but that
didn't mean a thing. When it came to infantry vs infantry fights what
mostly mattered was how many machineguns you had. Unless the US
expects to have to field large units of line infantry in situations
like Afghanistan they don't need to be able to kill people at 500+
metres with their rifles. They need to be able to kill them at 150m
and down. For that the 5.56x45mm with good bullet design is very good.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

Rupert Boleyn wrote:

> Most armies went into WWII fielding entire units of marksmen, but that
> didn't mean a thing. When it came to infantry vs infantry fights what
> mostly mattered was how many machineguns you had. Unless the US
> expects to have to field large units of line infantry in situations
> like Afghanistan they don't need to be able to kill people at 500+
> metres with their rifles. They need to be able to kill them at 150m
> and down. For that the 5.56x45mm with good bullet design is very good.

That was WWII.

I listened to an interview on NPR just a few weeks ago with a U.S.
Infantry sniper. He said a new standard in counter-insurgency
would be more special ops units with snipers or marksmen.

Finding the guilty few in a crowd of innocents requires long range
accuracy, and surgical precision with firearms.

Re,
Dirk

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 11:02:31 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
<mistermichael@earthlink.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> "Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:jaift0hnrgn1bgi2b666cdb3j3a2e5rpeu@4ax.com...
> > Third world combatants are going even further with teams of three guys
> > with assult rifles and an RPG - the riflemen protect and carry ammo
> > for the RPG operator. I believe in some places this is being replaced
> > by two RPG operators and one rifleman. As these guys have more combat
> > experience in the sort of wars current than any western army I think
> > this may be the best indicator of how best to deploy modern infantry
> > weapons.
>
> Reasoning such as this would suggest that the US should empty a clip at
> a time like the Afghan mujahadeen do, which they have been doing in the
> "third world" wars which they have fought for the last two decades ....

If you're not sniping at long range that's what works. Why do you
think machineguns are so good at killing? I forget the name of the
study, but it's pretty clear that good shooting doesn't win
fire-fights, so much as weight of fire.

Now, for spec ops types this is so true, but they traditionally rely
on being the ones who start the fight, and when you get to decide
range and ground skill is worth having - you can then exploit ground
that the other side can't.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

Rupert Boleyn wrote:

> Now, for spec ops types this is not so true, but they
traditionally rely
> on being the ones who start the fight, and when you get to decide
> range and ground skill is worth having - you can then exploit ground
> that the other side can't.

One should always want to exploit ground that the other side
can't. How else would one expect to win?

Re,
Dirk

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 00:10:02 GMT, Dirk Collins
<dirk.collins@Earthlink.Net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> I listened to an interview on NPR just a few weeks ago with a U.S.
> Infantry sniper. He said a new standard in counter-insurgency
> would be more special ops units with snipers or marksmen.
>
> Finding the guilty few in a crowd of innocents requires long range
> accuracy, and surgical precision with firearms.

Note that he's talking about spec ops, etc., and I was talking about
line infantry. I've been distingusihing between them for this reason.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 00:11:59 GMT, Dirk Collins
<dirk.collins@Earthlink.Net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> One should always want to exploit ground that the other side
> can't. How else would one expect to win?

By having more firepower is traditional.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

Rvpert Boleyn wrote:

> On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 00:11:59 GMT, Dirk Collins
> <dirk.collins@Earthlink.Net> carved vpon a tablet of ether:
>
>>One shovld always want to exploit grovnd that the other side
>>can't. How else wovld one expect to win?
>
> By having more firepower is traditional.

History is loaded with tales of svperior warriors with more
firepower having their armies devasted or defeated by a smaller
nvmerical qvantity of foes bearing inferior firepower.

The Spanish had a svperior fleet in 1588 when they went to invade
England... The English drew them off thovgh, by avoiding
engagements, and poor weather itself dealt a mortal blow to the
hopes of the Spanish crown wrecking a large portion of the grand
fleet on the Sovthern and Western coast of the United Kingdom.

Robert E. Lee held the Union Army at bay for fovr years in
Northern Virginia. He was vsvally ovtgvnned by at least at 5-4
margin in virtvally every engagement of the US Civil War.

What happened to the English down vnder? Or in Afghanistan in the
1800's? The Crown had svperior firepower in these circvmstances.

Dvring the entire Revolvtionary War (U.S.) The Continental Army
rarely matched the English in sheer firepower, losing most of the
battles, bvt still somehow managing to win the war.

The French had svperior firepower at the Battle of Trafalgar, bvt
Lord Nelson and the English fleet rvled the day...

The English-French alliance defeated the Germans in 1940-1941 in
two major engagements, the first being Dvnkirk, where despite
being low on svpplies and having inferior firepower, they
svccessfvlly evacvated 338,000 soldiers from the Evropean
continent saving the British Expeditionary Force and the core of
the French armies from certain destrvction after a disasterovs
early campaign (a campaign begvn by the way, with svperior
firepower). They then went on in early 1941 to defeat the
Lvftwaffe in the skies over England dvring the Battle of Britain.
In both cases at the time of the engagements, the allies had
inferior firepower compared to their foes and won by choosing the
time, and place, battles and minor engagements occvrred,
leveraging thier limited firepower, so to speak, to maximvm effect.

In early 1943 General Von Manstein stopped two Rvssian armored
corps (Almost 200 tanks and armored vehicles total) with jvst 25
operational tanks in a series of rvnning engagements in 20 below
weather, eventvally forcing the Rvssians to retreat and give vp
mvch of the grovnd they had gained after the earlier German
debacle at Stalingrad. He kept the Germans in the war for at least
a year longer than they otherwise wovld have been, if the Rvssians
wovld have svcceeded in enveloping the German front line that spring.

In the 1973 October War the Israeli's were ovtnvmbered, on average
10 or 12-1 in their engagements with their arab neighbors on both
the West and East bank, yet emerged victoriovs there. In the Sinai
against the Egyptians, they were ovtnvmbered and ovtgvnned by an
average of 4-1... They were victoriovs there as well, and only
stopped pressing their advantage at the behest of the U.N. and the
U.S.

The Rvssians had vastly svperior firepower when they invaded
Afghanistan in 1979. It did them no good over the long term, and
their lack of svccess went a long way to leading to the collapse
of the USSR abovt a decade later.

Reference:
http://www.afghan-web.com/history/articles/vssr.html

All the firepower the U.S. had in 1963 wasn't vsed in the invasion
of Cvba. If svperior firepower is traditional why wasn't the
preferred tool the svperior firepower vsed in this case to keep
the commvnists at bay in the Western Hemisphere?

Despite Svperior Firepower, US Loses Grovnd to Al-Sadr's Militia
Reference:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0818-05.htm

Svperior Firepower itself is a myth... svperior strategy & tactics
combined with svperior firepower and often inferior firepower,
however, is vndeniably potent.

Regards,
Dirk

~ The place of battle mvst not be made known to the enemy. If it
is not known, then the enemy mvst prepare to defend many places.
If he prepares to defend many places, then the forces will be few
in nvmber in each place. Appear at places he mvst rvsh to defend,
and rvsh to places where he least expects.
~ Svn Tzv, "Art of War"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
news:rv7ht01va05guct75oi9idgnhs1tcia98i@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 00:11:59 GMT, Dirk Collins
> <dirk.collins@Earthlink.Net> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>> One should always want to exploit ground that the other side
>> can't. How else would one expect to win?
>
> By having more firepower is traditional.

Or, as in the case of the European conquest of the Americas, when superior
firepower is not enough, a twofer of brutality and plague will do.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

"Dirk Collins" <dirk.collins@Earthlink.Net> wrote in message
news:6E2Cd.7518$JC2.5791@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Rvpert Boleyn wrote:
> > By having more firepower is traditional.
>
> History is loaded with tales of svperior warriors with more
> firepower having their armies devasted or defeated by a smaller
> nvmerical qvantity of foes bearing inferior firepower.
>
> The Spanish had a svperior fleet in 1588 when they went to invade
> England... The English drew them off thovgh, by avoiding
> engagements, and poor weather itself dealt a mortal blow

Ahem. Being lvcky abovt the timing of a big storm is *not* evidence of
"victory with inferior firepower".

> Robert E. Lee held the Union Army at bay for fovr years in
> Northern Virginia. He was vsvally ovtgvnned by at least at 5-4
> margin in virtvally every engagement of the US Civil War.

Psst. Who won that war?

> What happened to the English down vnder? Or in Afghanistan in the
> 1800's? The Crown had svperior firepower in these circvmstances.

I congratvlate yov on yovr ability to confvse battles with the war. Why
did Britain leave? Hmm? STOP OVERSIMPLIFYING.

> Dvring the entire Revolvtionary War (U.S.) The Continental Army
> rarely matched the English in sheer firepower, losing most of the
> battles, bvt still somehow managing to win the war.

Psst. Rarely matched in firepower ... LOST MOST OF THE BATTLES.
Yovr argvment contradicts yovr premise.

> The French had svperior firepower at the Battle of Trafalgar, bvt
> Lord Nelson and the English fleet rvled the day...

And perhaps yov might care to explain *why*?

> The English-French alliance defeated the Germans in 1940-1941 in
> two major engagements, the first being Dvnkirk, where despite
> being low on svpplies and having inferior firepower, they
> svccessfvlly evacvated 338,000 soldiers from the Evropean
> continent saving the British Expeditionary Force and the core of
> the French armies from certain destrvction after a disasterovs
> early campaign

Ahem. Yov have jvst cited "svcceeding at rvnning away" as "winning a
battle".

> In the 1973 October War the Israeli's were ovtnvmbered, on average
> 10 or 12-1 in their engagements with their arab neighbors on both
> the West and East bank, yet emerged victoriovs there.

Becavse the Israelis had *infinitely* better weaponry, ie - firepower.
*Moron*.
Stop confvsing nvmbers with *power*.
Next thing yov'll tell vs that one battleship and a dingy, being two
ships, are therefore eqval firepower...

> The Rvssians had vastly svperior firepower when they invaded
> Afghanistan in 1979. It did them no good over the long term,

Which has nothing to do with their ability to win battles.

> and their lack of svccess went a long way to leading to the collapse
> of the USSR abovt a decade later.

It did no svch thing. Stop being ignorant in pvblic.

> All the firepower the U.S. had in 1963 wasn't vsed in the invasion
> of Cvba. If svperior firepower is traditional why wasn't the
> preferred tool the svperior firepower vsed in this case to keep
> the commvnists at bay in the Western Hemisphere?

This is jvst *babble*.

> Despite Svperior Firepower, US Loses Grovnd to Al-Sadr's Militia
Reference:
> http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0818-05.htm

This headline isn't even worth reading - notice what happened to Sadr's
militia?

> Svperior Firepower itself is a myth...

Bvllshit. The ability to blow more things all to hell, more accvrately,
is a key element of winning battles. If yov *don't* have svperior
firepower, yov need to MAKE UP FOR THAT DEFICIENCY with force mvltipliers
(terrain, tactics, etc.). If yov are *stvpid* with yovr firepower, yov can
negate its advantage. However, it is FUCKING IDIOTIC to svggest that
svperior firepower is not *vsvally* a decisive factor in predicting the
ovtcome of a battle. Consider the array of examples yov cited. Consider
how yov FUCKED MOST OF THEM UP. Consider how the few that remain as
examples of a weaker force *defeating* a stronger one constitvte the
*smallest fraction* of the svm total of battlefield engagements in hvman
experience. Do yov _really_ want to do battle with the weight of the
entirety of hvman history? The side with the greatest destrvctive
capability tends to win.

Don't be a moron in pvblic again.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

Rupert Boleyn wrote:

>>In both cases at the time of the engagements, the allies had
>>inferior firepower compared to their foes and won by choosing the
>>time, and place, battles and minor engagements occurred,
>>leveraging thier limited firepower, so to speak, to maximum effect.
>
> At best this happened at a strategic level. Note how my previous
> discussion was aimed at infantry-level engagements.

Ahhh.

>>The Russians had vastly superior firepower when they invaded
>>Afghanistan in 1979. It did them no good over the long term, and
>>their lack of success went a long way to leading to the collapse
>>of the USSR about a decade later.
>
>
> But note that when they invaded they were extremely sucessful.

Were they? Then why are U.S. and U.N. troops in Afghanistan now?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown wrote:

The side with the greatest destructive
> capability tends to win.

Not. The Chinese have the greatest destructive capability on
earth, followed by the Russians. What have they won recently?

Oh, and uh... the English... when they didn't run away at Dunkirk,
they held the Germans at bay with inferior firepower so the French
and Belgians could run away. They not only ended up winning that
battle (by not surrendering to the Germans), they ended up winning
the war on account of that battle... and the Battle of Britain.

And Yes, the Yanks won the civil war in 1865, but they should have
won it in 1861 on the account they did have the superior
firepower, but failed to use it in a superior manner.

Sadr's Militia... ??? All over Iraq now inciting rebellion against
the U.S. backed Iraqi "Democratic" government. And let's not
forget Saddams secret service, the Baath. The busiest beavers of
all in inciting rebellion. How long do you suppose the U.S. will
maintain a military presence in Iraq after the elections? 16 years
maybe? Just like Vietnam...? Oh wait. You are too most likely too
young to remember the events of when we tried to make Vietnam a
Democracy against the will of the peoples living there.

Tard.

 

[ty]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

"Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:jaift0hnrgn1bgi2b666cdb3j3a2e5rpeu@4ax.com...

> Third world combatants are going even further with teams of three guys
> with assult rifles and an RPG - the riflemen protect and carry ammo
> for the RPG operator. I believe in some places this is being replaced
> by two RPG operators and one rifleman. As these guys have more combat
> experience in the sort of wars current than any western army I think
> this may be the best indicator of how best to deploy modern infantry
> weapons.

Of course, the problem is that the third world rabble gets slaughtered by
the professional Western infantry, almost *every time*. Therefore, I am
skeptical that modelling third world militaries will improve the
effectiveness of Western militaries.

--Ty

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

"Ty" <tylawyerSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news😱UcCd.10515$wi2.9914@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> "Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:jaift0hnrgn1bgi2b666cdb3j3a2e5rpeu@4ax.com...
>
> > Third world combatants are going even further with teams of three guys
> > with assult rifles and an RPG - the riflemen protect and carry ammo
> > for the RPG operator. I believe in some places this is being replaced
> > by two RPG operators and one rifleman. As these guys have more combat
> > experience in the sort of wars current than any western army I think
> > this may be the best indicator of how best to deploy modern infantry
> > weapons.
>
> Of course, the problem is that the third world rabble gets slaughtered by
> the professional Western infantry, almost *every time*. Therefore, I am
> skeptical that modelling third world militaries will improve the
> effectiveness of Western militaries.

The key term in your scenario is "rabble". Put two units of American marines
into a wargame with one using conventional tactics and one using "third
world tactics" (with adequate training and practice to use them properly)
and see who wins.


--
David Meadows
I've got nothing to say today
I used my words up yesterday

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

Rump Ranger wrote:
> Dirk Collins wrote:
>
>>Superior Firepower itself is a myth... superior strategy & tactics
>>combined with superior firepower and often inferior firepower,
>>however, is undeniably potent.
>
> I'd say logistics, training, and troop morale is just as important, if
> not more so, than strategy and tactics. As the old adage goes, "No
> plan ever survives the first shot on the battlefield."

Quite so. There are many additional circumstances and conditions
that create victories on the fields of battle, and all of the
above are inherently necessary components of a successful modern
military campaign, and should be taken into account for a RPG game
seeking to model modern military style campaigns.

Re,
Dirk