The following is a discussion from the GZG list (FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk) of some ideas I have for weapons in Dirtside. Mainly better anti infantry systems. Thanks to the folks that have responded to my questions.

From: Ryan Montieth Gill rmgill@mindspring.com
Subject: Dirtside questions/ideas...

I've lurked for a little while and now I make a big post. Forgive me if they've been discussed before. I tend to read a bit and I've come across these systems and would like to try them. (Perhaps they'll be included in a DSII suppliment.) Please comment and critique...

Cannister/Beehive rounds for use in HKPs, MDCs, and HVCs? I recently got my hands on a manual from the US Army about artillery systems. Its mostly an overview but covers basics of loading, fuzing and the types of projectiles. One of the really intersting rounds is the M546 APERS round.

It has 8,000 8 grain steel darts inside that are expelled as it flies towards the target area. It can be set to arm immediately after leaving the gun tube or at long range. No medium range setting for some reason.V ViewAttch 44%towards the target area. It can be set to arm immediately after leaving the gun tube or at long range. No medium range setting for some reason. Really nasty against infantry in soft cover. Sort of a big 155mm shotgun. The use in vietnam was very effective in the jungle from accounts I've read.

In dirtside I would expect this to be really good for use against infantry. How to show the affects? perhaps a oval shaped template that is axialy arranged in the line of fire? Red and yellow chits at double value maybe. Yellow chits at half value when behind hard cover. I'd think it would ignore soft cover and also remove soft cover from the area under the template. Range like the weapons standard round. Maybe an additional point of cost for the weapon system due to the adaptaion of handling another ammo type....

Also why not allow artillery to use it for emergency direct fire missions. It would certainly make infantry think twice about shooting at an artillery battery with small arms....

Direct Fire Demolition charges/HE rounds: Severl vehicles on modern use have a large caliber/short ranged demolition type gun used for bunker busting. I'd like to incorporate these into my AEV's. It should have a decent ability to hurt infantry that are dug in. The Russians also have a low velocity 100mm gun on the BMP-3 that is along the same lines. Mainly for dealing with dug in infantry... What sort of rules there? Short range, bad penetration on armour... Say red(or yellow?) against armour, and red/yellow vs infantry when in open and red when dug in? Same cost as a HVC since its simple tech. Should it have an advantage in urban combat? Ala the German Sturm tiger and Russian tanks for the late stages of WWII.

Fuel Air Explosives/Napalm/JP233: I'm not sure if these are really covered by the DFO rules or not. FAE's are a liquid version of the cluster bomb. Instead of a big bundle of little bomblets, it distributes a fine mist of flamable material over a large area, and then detonates it. Very effective against soft targets as the overpressure wave is very strong, it is also an airburst weapon.

Napalm would seem to be a tricky thing, it may be covered by hef, but I would think it would not help to be dug in against it. It should also always start fires! Also not as effective versus Armoured vehicles...? JP233 (british weapon btw) is a double whammy sort of weapon, it consist of a dispensor mounted under the AC (RAF Tornados in modern times) that drops two types of bomblets, one is a rocket propelled cratering charge the other is a anti-personel/material mine to stop the engineers from fixing the airfield quickly. Perhaps just run it like a MAK/Mine Drop? One pod? maybe two?

Flame Throwers: A shortranged weapon for use against infantry in fortifications. It would obviously start fires and also ignore cover. What sort of range? 4" for infantry and 12" for vehicle mounts? How many chits? Maybe a template?

AC130 variants? I've been waiting for the parts for building an AC130 to come in. I'll probably hack the bits from a C-141 and C-130 for the AC. It would be size 7, and require and exception in the rules for side firing weapons on a large Aircraft.

From: DirtSider@aol.com
Subject: Re: Dirtside questions/ideas...

>Flame Throwers: A shortranged weapon for use against infantry in >fortifications. It would obviously start fires and also ignore cover. What >sort of range? 4" for infantry and 12" for vehicle mounts? How many >chits? Maybe a template?

This is the only suggestion that I have problems with. Flamethrowers typically have a range of only about 65 meters, or one inch in game scale. There was a similar thread with respect to Star Grunt, so I don't want to get into the discussion about modern chemical again. But I just don't believe that you can force a gel stream much further than 50-75 meters with the kind of compression equipment available on combat vehicles, much less man-packed equipment.

From: Brendan.ROBERTSON@EMPLOYMENT.GOV.AU
Subject: RE: Dirtside questions/ideas...

Maybe give a major bonus in an infantry fire fight or close combat. This would reflect the fact that they're generally used as a support weapon during an infantry assault on a fortified position.

From: Ryan Montieth Gill rmgill@mindspring.com
Subject: Re: Dirtside questions/ideas... On Wed, 11 Jun 1997 DirtSider@aol.com wrote:

So would 1" for man packed units and 2" for vehicle sound pretty good? They've got some pretty heavyduty pumps nowadays for firefighting. Presumeably similar pumps could be developed for flamable liquids... I guess they would really only help in urban fighting and such. Still they could be nasty and requre the unit shot at take a threatlevel 0 confidence test.

From: "Glover, Owen"
Subject: RE: Dirtside questions/ideas...

Actually perhaps we are looking at this in the wrong way. If you were to presume that the weapon actually fires an INCENDIARY, similar to white phosphorous would this not have the same effect as a gel but enable you to fire a round to virtually any range that you could a HE projectile?

I have seen enough damage done by WP to have the same respect/loathing for it as for a naptha/petroleum gel mix.

From: Ryan Montieth Gill rmgill@mindspring.com
Subject: RE: Dirtside questions/ideas...

On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Glover, Owen wrote: > Actually perhaps we are looking at this in the wrong way. > > If you were to presume that the weapon actually fires an INCENDIARY, > similar to white phosphorous would this not have the same effect as a > gel but enable you to fire a round to virtually any range that you could > a HE projectile?

Not a bad Idea... I was also thinking about a Willie Pete round for the artillery. Effects as HE, but also starts fires, makes smoke and requires a +1 conf test.

> I have seen enough damage done by WP to have the same respect/loathing > for it as for a naptha/petroleum gel mix.

Do WP/Napalm tend to ignore dug in positions? I would think that they would...but I don't know for a fact...

From: "Glover, Owen" oglover@mov.vic.gov.au
Subject: RE: Dirtside questions/ideas...

Half the damage done by these "terror" weapons is the fact that they burn up all the oxygen in the air; literally suck it right out of the fighting pits (along with any loose items like bodies?). You might have to restrict its use but the Confidence test as for Terror sounds good.

From: DirtSider@aol.com
Subject: Re: Dirtside questions/ideas...

>If you were to presume that the weapon actually fires an INCENDIARY, >similar to white phosphorous would this not have the same effect as a >gel but enable you to fire a round to virtually any range that you could >a HE projectile?

>I have seen enough damage done by WP to have the same respect/loathing >for it as for a naptha/petroleum gel mix.

Truth, and playable. Further, that would eliminate the need for a template.V