Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: The Vagabond <nomad74@*******.COM>
Subject: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 11:39:39 PST
I'm writing up my Special Forces(UCAS) campaign and I was just hoping
maybe some of you folks on the list could help me out with some holes.

First off, what would the UCAS Army use to deploy it's troops(for a
touch-down type landing)- I'm looking for a Helo or VTOL that is used
much like the Huey was used in Vietnam. A couple of their drops will
be in a very plush jungle area, so parachuting from a "C-260" wouldn't
be a good idea.

Secondly, what would the team's communcation specialist use to radio
outside support? I'm thinking a Tactical Communcation System would
work- sound about right?

Also, Would M-22a2s have a bayonet stud? Bayonets have been a
tradition in the military since the rifle was invented- I don't see a
reason why they'd stop now(although it'd look silly on a Colt Cobra).
I'd probably tread as a pole-arm, but with a reach of +1.

I'd also like to hear any other ideas or suggestions from any other
GMs out there that has mounted a Special Forces campaign- I have to
admit this is my first time mounting a campaign like this of such high
calibre(no pun intended), even for a group of Shadowrunners, and so I
want to make sure the practice goes off without a hitch(even if the
missions don't<g>).
Thanks in advance.

-Vagabond <nomad74@*******.com> <ICQ 4297972>
___________________________________________________________
"Fall seven times, stand up eight."
-Japanese Proverb
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 2
From: Stefan <casanova@******.PASSAGEN.SE>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 21:31:22 +0000
> I'm writing up my Special Forces(UCAS) campaign and I was just hoping
> maybe some of you folks on the list could help me out with some holes.

Sounds really cool ... have to try this with my players sometime when
they need new characters ... :)

> First off, what would the UCAS Army use to deploy it's troops(for a
> touch-down type landing)- I'm looking for a Helo or VTOL that is used
> much like the Huey was used in Vietnam. A couple of their drops will
> be in a very plush jungle area, so parachuting from a "C-260" wouldn't
> be a good idea.

Guess that would be different from mission to mission, but choppers
or parachutes ... or landing crafts if they are close to shore ... or
if it is really deep jungle they would just have to be put down
someplace outside and walk ...

> Secondly, what would the team's communcation specialist use to radio
> outside support? I'm thinking a Tactical Communcation System would
> work- sound about right?

that or a deck with some form of portable matrix link .. satelite or
something silimar to that.

> Also, Would M-22a2s have a bayonet stud? Bayonets have been a
> tradition in the military since the rifle was invented- I don't see a
> reason why they'd stop now(although it'd look silly on a Colt Cobra).
> I'd probably tread as a pole-arm, but with a reach of +1.

Yes. Bayonets will be used forever, both for tradition and cause that
it is very useful. It is the armed forces things are not supposed to
look cute they are supposed to be functional ... I would also assign
a rifel with bayonet a reach of +1 ... uhh troll with bayo +2 :)

> I'd also like to hear any other ideas or suggestions from any other
> GMs out there that has mounted a Special Forces campaign- I have to
> admit this is my first time mounting a campaign like this of such high
> calibre(no pun intended), even for a group of Shadowrunners, and so I
> want to make sure the practice goes off without a hitch(even if the
> missions don't<g>).

Please tell me how it goes, I'm very interested in launching one of
my own ...

Send in the grunt .... :)

/Stefan

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Frag you and the datastream you came on!" - Sinjin the decker
------------------------------------------------------------------------
... E-Mail .............................. casanova@***.passagen.se ...
... HomePage .............................. http://hsl.home.ml.org ...
... HomePage ................... http://www.bugsoft.hik.se/sl11ls/ ...
... ICQ .................................................. 1403212 ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 3
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 22:27:14 +0000
> I'm writing up my Special Forces(UCAS) campaign and I was just hoping
> maybe some of you folks on the list could help me out with some holes.
Not being a military man, I'd still like to speculate. :)

> First off, what would the UCAS Army use to deploy it's troops(for a
> touch-down type landing)- I'm looking for a Helo or VTOL that is used
> much like the Huey was used in Vietnam. A couple of their drops will
> be in a very plush jungle area, so parachuting from a "C-260" wouldn't
> be a good idea.

A GMC Banshee, a troop transport version of the Aguillar (Similar to
the 'HIND'), or nightfliers sounds likely. The two first are able to
support a landing, while they have high enough Signature to be
considered fairly stealthy. Or they'd use 'modified' Ares Dragons if
they need lots of gear, a few Appaloosas, etc. with them and can land
well away from enemy positions.

> Secondly, what would the team's communcation specialist use to radio
> outside support? I'm thinking a Tactical Communcation System would
> work- sound about right?

TacCom is good, but the transportable master version is damn heavy.
Same for a BatTac system.. but they are very useful, so they *would*
use them, but the radio guy probably gets some strength mods. :)

> Also, Would M-22a2s have a bayonet stud? Bayonets have been a
> tradition in the military since the rifle was invented- I don't see a
> reason why they'd stop now(although it'd look silly on a Colt Cobra).
> I'd probably tread as a pole-arm, but with a reach of +1.

Hmm bayonets. Weren't they covered somewhere? Wait a sec while I have
a look...

.. nope... no. nah.

At least not in the BBB, FoF or SSC.

(Anyone know why a monosword, which is supposed to be a high-tech
sword, is worse than a Katana(same damage, heavier), and cannot even
be dikoted, making it *really* bad comparatively?)

As for damage, I'd say same as a cougar fineblade or equivalent
knife, +1 reach. (Assuming special forces use high-quality blades.).

Another little detail might be monofilament versions of the CIA
plastic stranglestraps. (Garrotte).

Suggested reading would be something by Chris Ryan (The one that got
away, for instance). I'm not sure how much it'd help, but can't
hurt...

Anyone has suggested stats for the 'Cobras' in Neuromancer?
(A hybrid telescoping whip/blade - also featured in Johnny
Mnemonic.).

Oops, gotta go see Starship Troopers. Talk to you later!


> I'd also like to hear any other ideas or suggestions from any other
> GMs out there that has mounted a Special Forces campaign- I have to
> admit this is my first time mounting a campaign like this of such high
> calibre(no pun intended), even for a group of Shadowrunners, and so I
> want to make sure the practice goes off without a hitch(even if the
> missions don't<g>).
> Thanks in advance.

I assume you have read the 'special forces campaign' bit in SRC. It
says a lot about what kinds of guys is needed, what is likely to be
useful, and so on.

What kinds of mission did you have in mind, btw?

--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
Message no. 4
From: MgkellyMJ7 <MgkellyMJ7@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 16:52:49 EST
In a message dated 98-03-07 14:41:04 EST, you write:

<< First off, what would the UCAS Army use to deploy it's troops(for a
touch-down type landing)- I'm looking for a Helo or VTOL that is used
much like the Huey was used in Vietnam. A couple of their drops will
be in a very plush jungle area, so parachuting from a "C-260" wouldn't
be a good idea.

Secondly, what would the team's communcation specialist use to radio
outside support? I'm thinking a Tactical Communcation System would
work- sound about right?

Also, Would M-22a2s have a bayonet stud? Bayonets have been a
tradition in the military since the rifle was invented- I don't see a
reason why they'd stop now(although it'd look silly on a Colt Cobra).
I'd probably tread as a pole-arm, but with a reach of +1.

I'd also like to hear any other ideas or suggestions from any other
GMs out there that has mounted a Special Forces campaign- I have to
admit this is my first time mounting a campaign like this of such high
calibre(no pun intended), even for a group of Shadowrunners, and so I
want to make sure the practice goes off without a hitch(even if the
missions don't<g>).
Thanks in advance.
>>

the SF would use whatever vehicle could get them to the drop-zone. rapelling
from a helicopter is a good idea if they need to penetrate a thick jungle
canopy.

a TAC system would be about right, however, i would take it that there are
still radios in Shadowrun. military forces use Sat-Link radios nowadays, so
they might go to a Microwave or Laser transmitter beam in SR..

judging by the picture in Street Samurai Catalog, i would say that there's is
enough room between the rifle barrel on the M-22 to mount a bayonet stud,
without interfering with the grenade launcher. i haven't really ever heard
about SF using bayonets (or regular troops for that matter. warfare is
progressing so that troops can kill from further distances to prevent taking
casualties), but that would be a GM or player call as to whether or not they
wanted them.

==================================================================
Mgkelly "Didn't get this nickname just because it sounded good...."
Message no. 5
From: The Vagabond <nomad74@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 14:26:04 PST
>> I'm writing up my Special Forces(UCAS) campaign and I was just
hoping
>> maybe some of you folks on the list could help me out with some
holes.

>Not being a military man, I'd still like to speculate. :)

It's okay, I *was* in the military, and you see me still asking
questions. What I know about today's Army and what I know about
Shadowrun's Army are two different things. :)

>
>> First off, what would the UCAS Army use to deploy it's troops(for a
>> touch-down type landing?

>A GMC Banshee, a troop transport version of the Aguillar (Similar to
>the 'HIND'), or nightfliers sounds likely. The two first are able to
>support a landing, while they have high enough Signature to be
>considered fairly stealthy. Or they'd use 'modified' Ares Dragons if
>they need lots of gear, a few Appaloosas, etc. with them and can land
>well away from enemy positions.

Good call. I was thinking something along those lines. But I was
also looking for something they could repel from, since that's SOP if
there isn't a clearing to land it(for Special Forces, anyway). Wouldn't
the turbine engines on a LAV get in the way of repelling?
An Ares Dragon seems like it'd be too big- not much for stealth.
My grasp of the rules for using vehicles and such is mediocre at
best, that's why I'm asking- so correct me if wrong.

>
>> Secondly, what would the team's communcation specialist use to
radio
>> outside support?

>TacCom is good, but the transportable master version is damn heavy.
>Same for a BatTac system.. but they are very useful, so they *would*
>use them, but the radio guy probably gets some strength mods. :)

Plus ca change... :)
>
>> Also, Would M-22a2s have a bayonet stud? Bayonets have been a
>> tradition in the military since the rifle was invented- I don't see a
>> reason why they'd stop now(although it'd look silly on a Colt Cobra).
>> I'd probably tread as a pole-arm, but with a reach of +1.
>

>(Anyone know why a monosword, which is supposed to be a high-tech
>sword, is worse than a Katana(same damage, heavier), and cannot even
>be dikoted, making it *really* bad comparatively?)

Because, as stated in SSC, the Monosword is somewhat of a misnomer-
the edge is made of a monofilmant line, doesn't really mean it's a
monomolecular strand(I believe the comment in SSC was "So what? My
shoelaces are made of monowire..."). As for not being able to be
dikoted, think of it as trying to coat a fishing line teflon. Sure,
it'd be tougher, but not nearly as effective(not to mention sharper).

>
>As for damage, I'd say same as a cougar fineblade or equivalent
>knife, +1 reach. (Assuming special forces use high-quality blades).

Speaking as a former employee of the US Army, I'd seriously doubt
Uncle Sam would fork over that kind of bread to his troops(especially in
the world of Shadowrun, where the UCAS isn't the fighting force the old
US once was). Special Forces are taught how to be good with the crappy
gear they are issued, it's the whole point. :) However, if they
want to pay out of their pockets for a fineblade knife and have it
converted to fit a bayonet stud, I'd allow it(but I'm not going to
volunteer the info). As a sidenote, I have butterknives sharper than
the bayonets used today. As long as it has a stabbing point, it can
serve it's purpose.

>
>Another little detail might be monofilament versions of the CIA
>plastic stranglestraps. (Garrotte).

Their special forces, not the OSS. :) Again, if they want to shell
out for something like that....

>Oops, gotta go see Starship Troopers. Talk to you later!

I have a run idea for Bug City(the campaign will start in late '54).
I may have to sit my group down to watch it before the go :)


>I assume you have read the 'special forces campaign' bit in SRC. It
>says a lot about what kinds of guys is needed, what is likely to be
>useful, and so on.

Yep. The first session I will have will consist of what kind of
people will be needed in the team(such as a comm expert, a MedTech, a
mana-slinger). Unlike Shadowrunners, they don't have the freedom to be
individuals in the same sense. The government will make the team up,
and so the team must fill certain requirements. Once they understand
that, they can begin to colaborate with each other on building a team(as
to opposed of a "group of individuals")- part of the reason I wanted
make a special forces campaign(that, and look for a good enough reason
to run "King of the Mountain" in Missions).

>
>What kinds of mission did you have in mind, btw?

I have several in mind. write now I'm wring on the Special forces
equivelant to a "milk run"- something simple to give them the feel of
"not being Shadowrunners". After that, I'll start giving them more
complex missions. My group is particluarly combat-friendly, and one
thing I'm sure they'll like about this campaign is the sever reduction
in legwork(for the most part<eg>).
Once I have them all written up, I'll see if Paolo(or any one on
this list) wants to post them up somewhere. If not, I'll mail them out
to whomever is interested.



-Vagabond <nomad74@*******.com> <ICQ 4297972>
___________________________________________________________
"Fall seven times, stand up eight."
-Japanese Proverb


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 6
From: The Vagabond <nomad74@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 14:33:51 PST
>the SF would use whatever vehicle could get them to the drop-zone.
rapelling
>from a helicopter is a good idea if they need to penetrate a thick
jungle
>canopy.

Yes, I know. My question is: What kind of vehicle?

>
>a TAC system would be about right, however, i would take it that there
are
>still radios in Shadowrun. military forces use Sat-Link radios
nowadays, so
>they might go to a Microwave or Laser transmitter beam in SR..

Microwave, perhaps. I don't see the military frequently using a
laser type transmitter(unless they drastically improve).

>
>judging by the picture in Street Samurai Catalog, i would say that
there's is
>enough room between the rifle barrel on the M-22 to mount a bayonet
stud,
>without interfering with the grenade launcher.

There is a pic of the M-22A2 in FoF, and yes, I would say there is.
Like it's 20th century counterpart, a grenade launcher is optional.

i haven't really ever heard
>about SF using bayonets (or regular troops for that matter. warfare is
>progressing so that troops can kill from further distances to prevent
taking
>casualties), but that would be a GM or player call as to whether or not
they
>wanted them.

Never seen an M-16A2 up close, have you? They still use bayonets, I
know because I was trained with one(what do think the point of the pugil
sticks are?). As long as you have to load a weapon, the chance exsists
you'll run out of ammo- and when that happens you'll need the bayonet.
As long as their are bullets, they'll be bayonets.



-Vagabond <nomad74@*******.com> <ICQ 4297972>
___________________________________________________________
"Fall seven times, stand up eight."
-Japanese Proverb


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 7
From: "Leszek Karlik, aka Mike" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 01:10:10 +0000
On 7 Mar 98, The Vagabond disseminated foul capitalist propaganda by
writing:

> First off, what would the UCAS Army use to deploy it's
> troops(for a touch-down type landing)- I'm looking for a Helo or
> VTOL that is used much like the Huey was used in Vietnam. A
> couple of their drops will be in a very plush jungle area, so
> parachuting from a "C-260" wouldn't be a good idea.

Well, from thunderbirds, they would probably use something more like
AV-4 (BTW: Jane's Rigger Registry has SR stats for AV series. I like
it. ;)) then GMC Banshee (which is not, IIRC, a troop transport). And
remember that RBB2 Banshees have a stall speed, so in this case, one
has to use choppers instead. ;-/
(Of course, IMC thunderbirds are true VTOL. But that's just IMC. )

Otherwise, Nightflyers are a good suggestion. Or a transport chopper.
Or maybe the Ares' military transport version of Osprey from the Corp
Security HB? (Hmmm... That might actually do the trick.)

> Secondly, what would the team's communcation specialist use to
> radio outside support? I'm thinking a Tactical Communcation System
> would work- sound about right?

Probably, though I'd bet they'd use sat links for communicating with
HQ (like in GI Jane. ;>)

> Also, Would M-22a2s have a bayonet stud? Bayonets have been a
> tradition in the military since the rifle was invented- I don't see
> a reason why they'd stop now(although it'd look silly on a Colt
> Cobra). I'd probably tread as a pole-arm, but with a reach of +1.

Well, yes, I think they would. Of course, since this is UCAS
SpecForces, not British ones, I'm not 100% sure. (Brits still keep
their bayonets. I'm sure of that. ;>)

[...]

As for more suggestions - what kind of special forces are they,
anyway? Marine Recon? SEALs? Rangers? Whatever? ;>

I'd suggest looking at some of the equipment available on the net.
(Like the list of equipment made by Paul J. Adam. Now, I don't
remember the URL, but there's some nice stuff for SpecOps soldiers in
there. Combat fatigues, combat boots, webgear, bayonett etc.)


Leszek Karlik, aka Mike - trrkt@*****.onet.pl; http://www.wlkp.top.pl/~bear/mike;
Amber fan and Star Wars junkie; UIN 6947998; WTF TKD; FIAWOL; YMMV; IMAO; SNAFU; TANJ
Geek Code v3.1 GL/O d- s+: a19 C+++ W-(++) N+++ K? w(---) O@ M- PS+(+++) PE Y+
PGP- !t--- 5+(-) X- R*+++>$ tv-- b++++ D+ G-- e h--*! !r-- !y-*
I've got amnesia. FORGET IT!
Message no. 8
From: MgkellyMJ7 <MgkellyMJ7@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 20:19:17 EST
In a message dated 98-03-07 17:35:23 EST, you write:

<< Never seen an M-16A2 up close, have you? They still use bayonets, I
know because I was trained with one(what do think the point of the pugil
sticks are?). As long as you have to load a weapon, the chance exsists
you'll run out of ammo- and when that happens you'll need the bayonet.
As long as their are bullets, they'll be bayonets.
>>

seen the M16A2 up close, but not in a professional manner (never been in the
military). i thought that the military still had the M7 (IIRC the designation
correctly) in their inventory, but was unaware that that they were still
issued. hell, with my relatives aging and leaving the service, all the
information i get comes from books and TV now ;]

>the SF would use whatever vehicle could get them to the drop-zone.
rapelling
>from a helicopter is a good idea if they need to penetrate a thick
jungle
>canopy.

given the helicopters depicted in various sourcebooks, it looks like it will
be up to you to make stats for one. IIRC, i don't really remember seeing
anything but helicopters good for urban situations, mass transit of troops, or
combat. however, i may be wrong.

Mgkelly
Message no. 9
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 21:43:12 EST
In a message dated 98-03-07 20:01:19 EST, trrkt@*****.ONET.PL writes:

> Well, from thunderbirds, they would probably use something more like
> AV-4 (BTW: Jane's Rigger Registry has SR stats for AV series. I like
> it. ;)) then GMC Banshee (which is not, IIRC, a troop transport). And
> remember that RBB2 Banshees have a stall speed, so in this case, one
> has to use choppers instead. ;-/
> (Of course, IMC thunderbirds are true VTOL. But that's just IMC. )
>
Actually, I don't believe so. In many games, T-Birds are true VTOL. I think
basically their write-ups have been oversimplified in every instance. But
then, if you detail something to much, there are an equal amount of
"loopholes" that get abused...

-K
Message no. 10
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 06:24:44 +0000
> >(Anyone know why a monosword, which is supposed to be a high-tech
> >sword, is worse than a Katana(same damage, heavier), and cannot even
> >be dikoted, making it *really* bad comparatively?)
>
> Because, as stated in SSC, the Monosword is somewhat of a misnomer-
> the edge is made of a monofilmant line, doesn't really mean it's a
> monomolecular strand(I believe the comment in SSC was "So what? My
> shoelaces are made of monowire..."). As for not being able to be
> dikoted, think of it as trying to coat a fishing line teflon. Sure,
> it'd be tougher, but not nearly as effective(not to mention sharper).

That a monosword isn't as nasty as the monofilament whip is ok. It's
not as dangerous to use either... what I'm curious about is why
noone's managed to come up with a better sword than the katana... or
even an equally good one? Is the Katana so superior? Logic says no.
Logic also says designing SWORDS isn't a high priority for most
corps, of course... :)

--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
Message no. 11
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 06:24:44 +0000
> >> First off, what would the UCAS Army use to deploy it's troops(for a
> >> touch-down type landing?
>
> >A GMC Banshee, a troop transport version of the Aguillar (Similar to
> >the 'HIND'), or nightfliers sounds likely. The two first are able to
> >support a landing, while they have high enough Signature to be
> >considered fairly stealthy. Or they'd use 'modified' Ares Dragons if
> >they need lots of gear, a few Appaloosas, etc. with them and can land
> >well away from enemy positions.
>
> Good call. I was thinking something along those lines. But I was
> also looking for something they could repel from, since that's SOP if
> there isn't a clearing to land it(for Special Forces, anyway). Wouldn't
> the turbine engines on a LAV get in the way of repelling?
> An Ares Dragon seems like it'd be too big- not much for stealth.
> My grasp of the rules for using vehicles and such is mediocre at
> best, that's why I'm asking- so correct me if wrong.

Repell.. um.. rapelling? Descend down in rope from? Ok. No, I
wouldn't want to do that from a LAV, No Sir!. Best bet looks like a
troop transport Aguillar, or a regular Stallion, then. (2050
counterpart of the huey, as far as I can tell.).

As far as I can tell, the basic idea of using armored gunships
as troop transports in the way the Russians used the Hind
in Afghanistan is sound. That way it could also be of very real
assistance in supporting a landing. In 2050, with armor tech a few
steps ahead, an assault gunship would be more successful
than today, where weapons tech is ahead of armor.

So, let's make the writeup for.. hm..the Ares Marauder
(Heavy assault gunship)

I'll talk us through the design process, as I haven't done this too
often.. :)

I'll print it up in short form at the end.. skipping there is
suggested.

Is it an attack helicopter that thinks it's a cargo helicopter, or
the other way around? It would be 'cooler' as an attack heli, but we
want a vessel which can carry a squad of troopers (24) and a shitload
of ordnance support. It will requrie one pilot and one gunner. A
cargo heli version appears the most reasonable, as 24 people is far
beyond an attack heli's possibility. It is a heavy military vehicle
using smart materials, final markup is then (2.5+0.5)*4.



Handling 5
Speed 400
Acc 25
Economy 0,35
Body 7
Armour 24
Sig 5
- thermal 7
- radar 8
Autonav 4
Pilot -
Sensor 1
Cargo: 180(600)
Fuel capacity 1000
Load: 15000
Entry: 2+2d. (One hatch for each pilot, one door at each side. Embark
from doors over wing pylons.)
Design points: 1150

Design/customization options:
Fly-by-wire lvl 3 (Entire mod goes to load increase.). (2250 DP)
Smart materials (100 DP)

For a cargo chopper it is heavily tricked out - max load, speed, acc.
Load: 1415 DP
Speed: 560 DP
Handling: 50 DP
Acc: 30DP
Signature +2 3200 DP
(I assume it meant (improvement^4)*200. Added cost for one more sig
is then ((3^4*200)-3200)*100*12, or 15M nuyen. A bit much.).
Economy increase to 0,35: 12 increases -> 60DP
Cargo: +100 (It's not a cargo chopper, only a heavy gunship
motherfucker, so more cargo space than 180 would be unlikely.). 500DP

Engine customization: Reliability and maintenance is far more
important. Engine stays normal.
Autonav - 4 150DP
CMC - 9 (780 DP, 225 load)
Rigger adaptation 35 DP

Armor should be extraordinarily heavy. It's planned to be a brutally
heavy gunship. 24 points should help. (Like its prehistoric kin, the
Hind, 'real' anti tank weapons is needed to take it out. A great
asset for hot landings and close support.).
(Load: 5880, 1200 DP, +4 handling)

Crash cage and cabin overpressure enviroseal for those ABC jobs.
200 man-hours life support. (20 CF, 500 load, 205 DP)
(I assume roll bars are not compatible with crash cage.).
SAS smart armor is too heavy, and would endanger em/de-barking
troops.

It uses thermal bafflers and RAM protection. Its engine is not
customized, so may not use active masking.(700 load, 1500 DP)

Passenger accomodations:
It has four bench rows, each able to seat six normal sized or four XL
sized people, for a standard trooper complement of 24. The two
forward bench rows are folding, and has rails available for unloading
very heavy equipment.

2*4 reinforced bench seats
(Presumably also useful for cyberzombies or guys in milspec armor.).
2*4 folding bench seats.
(Regular people only).
Load used for passengers: 300*8+450*4B00 load. (1200 extra
load, 16 CF freed when folding benches are folded.). Uses 96 CF.
Pilot and gunner's bucket seat is armored. (2 pt each).

GM CALL: Winch to lower or raise heavy gear. (Support gear for
rapelling troops). Not covered. While far smaller than a crane, it is
more useful than a winch. Uses winch rules, but needs 5 CF's for a
small boom.
It is limited to a load rating of 5000 kilos. Cost: 5000 DP, 5 CF, 15
load.

Weapon mounts:
Small remote nose turret, 9 pts recoil adjustment (AA-capable. Gunner
controlled.
Fixed hard mount, internal, 9 pts recoil adjustment (pilot)
8 pylon missile mounts. (Every two used reduce signature by
1, may be controlled by either pilot or gunner or both.).
(725 DP, 5 CF, 100 load).

EW stuff: It *is* a military vehicle and a gunship to boot, so it has
a fairly extensive EW suite.. but it isn't an AWACS or a fighter jet,
so only has moderate to low military ratings.

Sensors: Mil 2, ED, ECD, ECM, ECCM - mil 1.
(19000DP)
JESUS!!! let's downgrade that a bit, shall we? Hm. Ok. Let's *THINK*
instead. It needs to go in quiet, and it needs to kick the shit out
of targets in the vicinity.. it is not designed to fight jets or
other high - ED or ECM targets. So, it should have a very good ED and
sensor suite, the rest can be far less... if the OPFOR has ground
vehicles with good ECM or ED it can fire optically instead.

So... Sensor and ED mil - 2, ECD sec - 3, EC(C)M sec - 2.
(Cost is not that much less but usefulness is far higher, IMO.).
(DP 15550, 32 CF, 470 load)

Extra mod: Adding 3000 liters fuel costs 600. (50% in increased CF.)
Definitely worth it - and likely. Could increase it with another
20000, in fact, but that sounds too high.

Totals spent:
DP: 39740
CF: 158 (Round off to 160)
Load:12090 (Round off to 12100)

This leaves 2900 load for weapons (8 missile pylons a 300 gives 500
load for main turret & gun, a fully loaded mobile infantry squad..
If folding benches are up, it can take 4100 kilos cargo.

Uh.. the price tag is 47.7 mill, btw.

Note that upgrading the EW suite and improving the sig by 1, while
feasible and easily done with the CF's available, would cost in the
vicinity of 90 mill extra - hardly worth it. Also note that I used a
military markup factor of 4 - if deemed rated 3 instead, price would
be reduced to 3/4th of current cost, or 36 million. Finally, dropping
all ECM, sensors etc. would save 10-20 mill... not worth it either,
as the gear more than doubles the craft's tactical value. Improving
the ED from 5 to 6 almost doubles its efficiency, but costs 12
million more... consider it carefully.




FINAL FORM: Ares Marauder - Heavy assault gunship

Handling Speed Acc Eco
5 400 25 0,35

Body Armor Sig (regular, thermal, radar)
7 24 5/7/8

Autonav Sensor Cargo Fuel Load
4 9 20(36) 4000 2900(4100)

Price: 47.7 million

Cockpit door for gunner and pilot. (No cabin access).
Side hatches for troopers - em/de-bark over either wing pylon.
Has 2*4 reinforced benches (may seat 12 normal or 8 troll sized)
Has 2*4 folding benches (may seat 12 normal)
Accessories: Crash cage, 200 hours life-support, Winch (5 tons)

Sensor: 9, ED: 5 ECD: 3 ECM: 6 ECCM: 6

Weapon mounts:
Small Turret w. 9 pts recoil comp.
Fixed weapon mount, internal, w. 9 pts recoil comp.
8 pylon mounted missile bays. (-1 sig per two used.).

Regular weapons is two smartmodified Victory autocannons, four
outlaw missiles, two Vogeljaeger missile pods (5 missiles each),
and two 7CF multirocket pods.
This configuration reduces the cargo load to about 1000
plus troopers w. full equipment.

Without drop tanks, effective bingo range is 700 km.
The mission requires a little forethought, depending on the
opposition. It can carry enough ordnance to level a moderate-sized
town, or it can go in with almost no chance of detection.. not both.
That additional dimension of planning should be a bonus for the kind
of campaign you are planning.

BTW, I'm not happy with the 'Marauder' name. Suggestions?
(The 'Hind' was nicknamed 'death ghost' or 'deathbringer' by the
afghani, according to discovery channel... heard worse, but in SR,
it'd be awfully cliche'd.).
--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
Message no. 12
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 01:01:28 EST
In a message dated 98-03-08 00:26:33 EST, runefo@***.UIO.NO writes:

> Design/customization options:
> Fly-by-wire lvl 3 (Entire mod goes to load increase.). (2250 DP)
> Smart materials (100 DP)
>
I just thought I would throw this in. FBW does NOT allow for stuff to go
towards a given attribute (Load, Accel or Speed). It's a 10% increase, to be
divided up by at least two places.

If you want a load increase, it's probably better suited to use "Engine
Customization" for a particular category. Yes, I know it's more expensive,
but them's the breaks...

The rest of it look kind of cool though...

-K
Message no. 13
From: Nexx <Nexx@********.NET>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 00:24:07 -0600
> That a monosword isn't as nasty as the monofilament whip is ok. It's
> not as dangerous to use either... what I'm curious about is why
> noone's managed to come up with a better sword than the katana... or
> even an equally good one? Is the Katana so superior? Logic says no.
> Logic also says designing SWORDS isn't a high priority for most
> corps, of course... :)

Actually, while its a bit weaker and can't parry worth a damn, a mono-filament
line stretched in a frame (think mono-filament whip inside of a C-shaped frame)
would probably do pretty good damage, probably about Str(S). It would overcome
the problems of a solid backing for that monoline (like a monosword has), and
the control problems with a monowhip.
As I said, parrying would be a major problem, but I would bet that it would
beat the pants off a katana.

***************
Rev. Mark Hall, Bardagh
aka Pope Nexx Many-Scars
ICQ 8108186
************
I often think I would put this belief in magic from me if I could, for I have
come to see or to imagine, in men and women, in houses, in handicrafts, in
nearly all sights and sounds, a certain evil, a certain ugliness, that comes
from the slow perishing through centuries of a quality of mind that made this
belief and its evidences common over the world.
-William Butler Yeats "Magic"
***********
Am Moireach Mor!
Message no. 14
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 12:16:23 +0100
The Vagabond said on 14:26/ 7 Mar 98...

> >A GMC Banshee

Not likely, I think. I imagine that a light tank with a jet turbine makes
a hell of al ot of noise, which is exactly what you want to avoid for most
SF insertions.

> >a troop transport version of the Aguillar (Similar to
> >the 'HIND'), or nightfliers sounds likely. The two first are able to
> >support a landing, while they have high enough Signature to be
> >considered fairly stealthy.

Hind-style helicopters seem nice but they have significant drawbacks,
mainly in that they're the typical jack of all trades, master of none.
IMHO you'd be better off with a lightly armed utility machine (a "slick,"
in Vietnam terms) and a dedicated attack helicopter providing fire
support.

> Good call. I was thinking something along those lines. But I was
> also looking for something they could repel from since that's SOP if
> there isn't a clearing to land it(for Special Forces, anyway). Wouldn't
> the turbine engines on a LAV get in the way of repelling?

I think you're bound to repel very fast from a jet engine :) Now if you
mean _ra_ppelling, a vectored thrust vehicle like a Banshee doesn't sound
like a good idea either. Getting caught in the exhaust is bad for your
skin, IMHO.

> An Ares Dragon seems like it'd be too big- not much for stealth.

BIG helicopters are used today, just look at the modern H-53 series of
machines used by the USAF, USN, and USMC. The MH-53 Pave Low series
used for SF operations are specially equipped to go long distances
undetected. A modified Ares Dragon looks like a good enough choice for
that, if equipped with things like some armor, lots of signature
enhancements, electronic deception systems, high-level autonav and
sensors, and drop tanks and/or an in-flight refuelling probe.

> As a sidenote, I have butterknives sharper than the bayonets used today.
> As long as it has a stabbing point, it can serve it's purpose.

That's because a bayonet is a dagger you stick onto the end of a rifle.
They're for stabbing with, not cutting. Modern bayonets are often intended
as multi-purpose tools, but how good the are for these things is open to
debate.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
I want to see the ground give way, I want to watch it all go down.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 15
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 12:16:23 +0100
Stefan said on 21:31/ 7 Mar 98...

> Yes. Bayonets will be used forever, both for tradition and cause that
> it is very useful. It is the armed forces things are not supposed to
> look cute they are supposed to be functional ...

Tell me, have you ever looked into military history? If things aren't
supposed to look cute, why bother with full dress? With "smart-looking"
uniforms? Ceremonial guards? (Just look at the British Army for that
one...)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
I want to see the ground give way, I want to watch it all go down.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 16
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 12:16:24 +0100
Fade said on 6:24/ 8 Mar 98...

> So, let's make the writeup for.. hm..the Ares Marauder
> (Heavy assault gunship)
[snip]
> Is it an attack helicopter that thinks it's a cargo helicopter, or
> the other way around? It would be 'cooler' as an attack heli,

For what you're designing, I'd say a utility chopper that thinks it's an
attack helicopter.

> but we want a vessel which can carry a squad of troopers (24)

That's 2 to 2 1/2 squads... For a one-squad helicopter you want seats for
about 15 people in all, including the machine's crew. If more need to be
carried, rip out the seats and let everyone sit on the floor (look at
pictures from Vietnam).

> Armor should be extraordinarily heavy. It's planned to be a brutally
> heavy gunship. 24 points should help. (Like its prehistoric kin, the
> Hind, 'real' anti tank weapons is needed to take it out. A great
> asset for hot landings and close support.).

And probably a bitch to fly when it comes to maneuvering the thing,
because there's so much stuff hanging onto it.

> (Load: 5880, 1200 DP, +4 handling)
>
> Crash cage and cabin overpressure enviroseal for those ABC jobs.

On a helicopter used for inserting troops into hot LZs? Do you realize you
lose your NBC protection as soon as you open the door to let the troops
out?

> GM CALL: Winch to lower or raise heavy gear. (Support gear for
> rapelling troops). Not covered. While far smaller than a crane, it is
> more useful than a winch. Uses winch rules, but needs 5 CF's for a
> small boom.

This is a ver useful feature, not just for lowering gear but also for
winching up troops. Locate the winch above one of the doors, or over a
hatch in the floor.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
I want to see the ground give way, I want to watch it all go down.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 17
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 12:16:23 +0100
The Vagabond said on 11:39/ 7 Mar 98...

> First off, what would the UCAS Army use to deploy it's troops(for a
> touch-down type landing)- I'm looking for a Helo or VTOL that is used
> much like the Huey was used in Vietnam. A couple of their drops will
> be in a very plush jungle area, so parachuting from a "C-260" wouldn't
> be a good idea.

Find a helicopter with 10-15 seats that's made in the UCAS, and you
have one probably used by the UCAS military :) A Hughes Airstar or
Stallion seems to fit the bill, though you could design something yourself
along the lines of the UH-1 or UH-60.

> Secondly, what would the team's communcation specialist use to radio
> outside support? I'm thinking a Tactical Communcation System would
> work- sound about right?

A burst radio, I think. They're used a lot today because they're very hard
to track (in case you don't know what this is, a message is recorded and
compressed, then sent in a fraction of a second to prevent third parties
from locating the transmitter).

The TCS sounds okay, though no mention of burst transmission capability
is made in the rules or description, though I suspect the portable master
unit would have this capability.

> Also, Would M-22a2s have a bayonet stud?

Only if you have a version of the rifle without the grenade launcher, or
if the bayonet fits over the barrel instead of under it (as, for example,
the bayonet for the FAL rifle does). Since all 20th century American
bayonets all go under the barrel, I think the M-22's would as well.

> Bayonets have been a tradition in the military since the rifle was
> invented-

Earlier, actually. Since about the late 16th, early 17th century (IIRC),
muskets could be equipped with bayonets :)

> I don't see a reason why they'd stop now(although it'd look silly on a
> Colt Cobra). I'd probably tread as a pole-arm, but with a reach of +1.

The Cobra is a submachinegun, not a rifle. I'd put damage at (Str+1)M or
something close to that. A rifle doesn't have the mass of a polearm, so
damage should be lower IMO. However I'd give it +1 Reach because of the
length of the weapon.

> I'd also like to hear any other ideas or suggestions from any other
> GMs out there that has mounted a Special Forces campaign- I have to
> admit this is my first time mounting a campaign like this of such high
> calibre(no pun intended), even for a group of Shadowrunners, and so I
> want to make sure the practice goes off without a hitch(even if the
> missions don't<g>).

Sorry, I haven't tried a campaign like this. I tend to stick with the
traditional "shadowrunners doing shadowruns" type of campaign.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
I want to see the ground give way, I want to watch it all go down.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 18
From: "Leszek Karlik, aka Mike" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 14:13:56 +0000
On 8 Mar 98, Gurth disseminated foul capitalist propaganda by
writing:

[...]
> Tell me, have you ever looked into military history? If things
> aren't supposed to look cute, why bother with full dress? With
> "smart-looking" uniforms? Ceremonial guards? (Just look at the
> British Army for that one...)

Still, the guards at, say, Windsor, while dressed in those funky
uniforms of theirs (;P), still carry fully functional, modern
firearms. And I bet they're loaded. <grin>


Leszek Karlik, aka Mike - trrkt@*****.onet.pl; http://www.wlkp.top.pl/~bear/mike;
Amber fan and Star Wars junkie; UIN 6947998; WTF TKD; FIAWOL; YMMV; IMAO; SNAFU; TANJ
Geek Code v3.1 GL/O d- s+: a19 C+++ W-(++) N+++ K? w(---) O@ M- PS+(+++) PE Y+
PGP- !t--- 5+(-) X- R*+++>$ tv-- b++++ D+ G-- e h--*! !r-- !y-*
Just don't tell the asylum you saw me here.
Message no. 19
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 12:27:11 +0000
In article <199803080525.GAA05494@***.uio.no>, Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
writes
>As far as I can tell, the basic idea of using armored gunships
>as troop transports in the way the Russians used the Hind
>in Afghanistan is sound.

_Heh_ If it's so sound, how come they lost, and how come they abandoned
the concept?

>That way it could also be of very real
>assistance in supporting a landing. In 2050, with armor tech a few
>steps ahead, an assault gunship would be more successful
>than today, where weapons tech is ahead of armor.

The problem remains that the troop carriers have to give up some weapons
in favour of troops, and landing troops demands a different flight path
to suppressing the defences.

Better to have troop carriers with armour and flexible weapons to land,
drop their troops and take off, and gunships with heavy firepower to
suppress the enemy during the landing. You can if necessary use the same
airframe (see Vietnam: "slicks" delivered troops while "snakes"
delivered firepower) or you can use different airframes (USMC CH-46 Sea
Knights are the troop carriers with AH-1Ws in support)

>So, let's make the writeup for.. hm..the Ares Marauder
>(Heavy assault gunship)

>Armor should be extraordinarily heavy. It's planned to be a brutally
>heavy gunship. 24 points should help. (Like its prehistoric kin, the
>Hind, 'real' anti tank weapons is needed to take it out. A great
>asset for hot landings and close support.).

The Hind is vulnerable to 12.7mm AP and any 14.5mm: KPV machine guns
were effective against them in Afghanistan. 23mm cannon fire will eat
them alive. You could safely halve the armour and still be immune to
anything short of missiles or assault cannon.

>Crash cage and cabin overpressure enviroseal for those ABC jobs.

Bit pointless for a helicopter, unless the hatches are airlocks. Maybe
for the cockpit, but the cabin will be contaminated any time a door's
opened or when troops come in from a contaminated area. Accept that and
just put the troops in NBC kit.

>It uses thermal bafflers and RAM protection. Its engine is not
>customized, so may not use active masking.(700 load, 1500 DP)

That's downright essential :)

>GM CALL: Winch to lower or raise heavy gear. (Support gear for
>rapelling troops). Not covered. While far smaller than a crane, it is
>more useful than a winch. Uses winch rules, but needs 5 CF's for a
>small boom.
>It is limited to a load rating of 5000 kilos. Cost: 5000 DP, 5 CF, 15
>load.

Excellent idea. Add a belly hitch or something similar as well, so you
can carry slung loads (say, a MPUV with two 81mm mortar tubes and a few
hundred rounds of ammo).

>Weapon mounts:
>Small remote nose turret, 9 pts recoil adjustment (AA-capable. Gunner
>controlled.
>Fixed hard mount, internal, 9 pts recoil adjustment (pilot)
>8 pylon missile mounts. (Every two used reduce signature by
>1, may be controlled by either pilot or gunner or both.).
>(725 DP, 5 CF, 100 load).

I'd concentrate more on suppressive-type weapons than missiles. Miniguns
in every door...

>Uh.. the price tag is 47.7 mill, btw.

I think the UCAS Army will just slap some extra armour, doorguns and ECM
on the Ares Dragon... :)

>BTW, I'm not happy with the 'Marauder' name. Suggestions?
>(The 'Hind' was nicknamed 'death ghost' or 'deathbringer' by the
>afghani, according to discovery channel... heard worse, but in SR,
>it'd be awfully cliche'd.).

The Hind was also nicknamed "hunchback". The Soviet nickname was,
apparently, "bumblebee".

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 20
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 15:06:30 +0000
> > Design/customization options:
> > Fly-by-wire lvl 3 (Entire mod goes to load increase.). (2250 DP)
> > Smart materials (100 DP)
> >
> I just thought I would throw this in. FBW does NOT allow for stuff to go
> towards a given attribute (Load, Accel or Speed). It's a 10% increase, to be
> divided up by at least two places.

You're welcome.

P 124, R2
"Additionally, the system reduces a vehicle's overall weight and
provides a one - time increase to the vehicle's acceleration, speed
and load ratings. To calculate the one-time increase, multiply the
desired rating by 0,1. If desired, the multiplier can be split among
two or three ratings."


--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
Message no. 21
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 15:06:30 +0000
Gurth wrote about the Marauder:
*snip*

> And probably a bitch to fly when it comes to maneuvering the thing,
> because there's so much stuff hanging onto it.

Probably.. especially with fully loaded pylons. Shoulndn't that give
a hit towards handling rather than signature? Or both? Usually, a
fighter-bomber is far more maneuverable once it has spent its
payload, for instance.
(For those curious, yes I converted one regular firmpoint into a
pylon mount.).


> > (Load: 5880, 1200 DP, +4 handling)
> >
> > Crash cage and cabin overpressure enviroseal for those ABC jobs.
>
> On a helicopter used for inserting troops into hot LZs? Do you realize you
> lose your NBC protection as soon as you open the door to let the troops
> out?

Of course. But the pilot's cockpit is sealed from the grunts'
cabin.(specified somewhere) and if they went into a hot area, I'd
expect the troopers to carry ABC gear. Also, it's nice to be able to
fly *through* such an area, even though you really do not want to
land *in* it. And it's vital for high altitude flying. And so on.


*snip Jack of all trades, master of none*

As for being a jack of all trades/master of none, I agree. At the
same time, the intended 'role' is fairly narrowly defined. It's when
you use its capabilities in other areas as if it was a specialized
heli that you get in trouble. It has mainly three uses that I can
see.. as troop support, troop transport, and armored cargo transport
(for isolated/surrounded firebases). In those cases, especially
behind enemy lines, you are susceptible to 'sniper' fire.. solo
guerillas with missile launchers. Escorts is little protection
(except that they can be shot down 'instead'.), while ED combined
with armor can at least give an illusion of safety. It's an
anti-guerilla chopper, not a frontline battlefield gunship, and as
such, it is not a jack of all trades at all. And it should be very
compatible with special forces missions. (Which is what was
requested, as far as I can tell). If the benches are taken out
(fairly simple job) you also free another 5000 kilos for cargo,
so it can pull decent weight as an armored cargo hauler.


Someone commented that it should be based on a utility chassis..
possibly/probably. I read 'utility' as 'civilian' and thought it
didn't sound right so I didn't look too closely at it. On the other
hand the design looks fairly decent the way it is, so I see no reason
to change it. But if you wish to make a utility chassis version, go
ahead.


--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
Message no. 22
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 12:08:23 +0000
In article <19980307193940.9832.qmail@*******.com>, The Vagabond
<nomad74@*******.COM> writes
> I'm writing up my Special Forces(UCAS) campaign and I was just hoping
>maybe some of you folks on the list could help me out with some holes.
>
> First off, what would the UCAS Army use to deploy it's troops(for a
>touch-down type landing)- I'm looking for a Helo or VTOL that is used
>much like the Huey was used in Vietnam. A couple of their drops will
>be in a very plush jungle area, so parachuting from a "C-260" wouldn't
>be a good idea.

Hughes Stallion. Like the UH-1 family, it's widespread (so you can't
point to it and say "Only the UCAS uses those!", cheap (so losses are
less catastrophic) and the world and his dog knows how to fix them and
fly them.

> Secondly, what would the team's communcation specialist use to radio
>outside support? I'm thinking a Tactical Communcation System would
>work- sound about right?

Yep, that would work nicely.

> Also, Would M-22a2s have a bayonet stud? Bayonets have been a
>tradition in the military since the rifle was invented- I don't see a
>reason why they'd stop now(although it'd look silly on a Colt Cobra).

There, I don't know. I and a few other Commonwealth troops had a lengthy
argument with a couple of gentlemen from the US Army, who were adamant
that the bayonet was obsolete and useless. The H&K G11 had no way to fit
a bayonet, either. So it's not impossible - even likely - that the UCAS
would have abandoned it (remember, from the SSC, the UCAS Army adopted
the G11 and was looking for a replacement in 2049-2050...)

You'll still see the British armed forces fixing bayonets, though :)

>I'd probably tread as a pole-arm, but with a reach of +1.

Damage is a bit high. I'd say (Str +2) M with Reach +1.

> I'd also like to hear any other ideas or suggestions from any other
>GMs out there that has mounted a Special Forces campaign- I have to
>admit this is my first time mounting a campaign like this of such high
>calibre(no pun intended), even for a group of Shadowrunners, and so I
>want to make sure the practice goes off without a hitch(even if the
>missions don't<g>).

Recall that SF troops are much more often spotters than fighters. They
are typically used for deep recon, finding enemy targets: either to
provide more data to the CO, or for attack by airpower or artillery.
While they are skilled fighters, they avoid fighting wherever possible
except in carefully-planned ambush-type attacks: if forced to engage
against their will, they use firepower, agression and fitness to break
contact and evade, then get as far clear as possible.

"Bravo Two Zero" covers this quite well: the novel of "Clear and Present
Danger" is also very good for describing a Special Forces-type unit
operating in hostile countryside.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 23
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 15:31:58 +0000
> >As far as I can tell, the basic idea of using armored gunships
> >as troop transports in the way the Russians used the Hind
> >in Afghanistan is sound.
>
> _Heh_ If it's so sound, how come they lost, and how come they abandoned
> the concept?

If the Huey(Slick/Snake) concept worked so fine, how come USA lost
Vietnam? The same pointless question.. the answer has nothing to do
with what kind of heli configuration they used. As for abandoning the
concept.. I wasn't aware they had. They cannot afford to produce more
of them, but then there has been *no* orders from the military for a
few years now over there. The only weapons produced is for export,
so *everything* is abandoned.

(That T-90 most tank sims features as its main 'most dangerous'
enemy? (Not far from most numerous, either)... as of today, 2 has
entered service (for testing.).).

Also..

There's a difference between the start of the campaign and the end of
it here.. it's the inevitable weapon/counterweapon drill. At the
start, there was few weapons able to effectively deal with the Hind..
in two years, they lost about 300, and it was quite successful. But
when the rebels got smarter and got better weapons, that tally rose
significantly. In the last two years, they lost 3000. I'm assuming
that in 2050, someone either forgot, or has noticed the armor balance
has shifted, requiring new anti-air weapons as a countermove.
(Also as a countermove against the Banshee, incidentally, so it's
probably underway.).

--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
Message no. 24
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 10:17:23 EST
In a message dated 98-03-08 09:07:39 EST, runefo@***.UIO.NO writes:

> P 124, R2
> "Additionally, the system reduces a vehicle's overall weight and
> provides a one - time increase to the vehicle's acceleration, speed
> and load ratings. To calculate the one-time increase, multiply the
> desired rating by 0,1. If desired, the multiplier can be split among
> two or three ratings."
>
Ah, okay, different way of reading. We were trying to ensure certain
limitations and didn't allow for "single attribute enhancement" with this one.
We have been thinking with a "control type improvement" that it would be hard
to put everything into a given attribute.

House Rule influx basically..

-K
Message no. 25
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 15:49:20 +0000
In article <199803081432.PAA28707@***.uio.no>, Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
writes
>> >As far as I can tell, the basic idea of using armored gunships
>> >as troop transports in the way the Russians used the Hind
>> >in Afghanistan is sound.
>>
>> _Heh_ If it's so sound, how come they lost, and how come they abandoned
>> the concept?
>
>If the Huey(Slick/Snake) concept worked so fine, how come USA lost
>Vietnam? The same pointless question.. the answer has nothing to do
>with what kind of heli configuration they used.

The fUSSR switched back to Mi-24s for gunship work and Mi-8s for troop
transports even during Vietnam, and their follow-on attack helicopters
(the Mi-28 and Ka-50) are pure gunships with no pretension to troop
carrying capability. The US expanded from UH-1 transport and gunship
aircraft, to UH-1 (and then UH-60) transports and AH-1 (and then AH-64)
gunships, in large measure because of Vietnam experience.

>As for abandoning the
>concept.. I wasn't aware they had.

Their follow-on designs through the 1980s were for dedicated gunships,
not multi-role aiircraft. The Hind successor was to be either the Mi-28
or the Ka-50.

>Also..
>
>There's a difference between the start of the campaign and the end of
>it here.. it's the inevitable weapon/counterweapon drill. At the
>start, there was few weapons able to effectively deal with the Hind..
>in two years, they lost about 300, and it was quite successful. But
>when the rebels got smarter and got better weapons, that tally rose
>significantly. In the last two years, they lost 3000.

The rebels initially had nothing apart from small-arms and weapons
captured from the government and Soviet forces: just about any aircraft
would be successful against that. The test is how they fare against a
better-equipped foe.

>I'm assuming
>that in 2050, someone either forgot, or has noticed the armor balance
>has shifted, requiring new anti-air weapons as a countermove.
>(Also as a countermove against the Banshee, incidentally, so it's
>probably underway.).

I have my own opinions about the Banshee :)

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 26
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 18:20:44 +0000
> >I'm assuming
> >that in 2050, someone either forgot, or has noticed the armor balance
> >has shifted, requiring new anti-air weapons as a countermove.
> >(Also as a countermove against the Banshee, incidentally, so it's
> >probably underway.).
>
> I have my own opinions about the Banshee :)

Now that you mention it, I remember. :)

The Banshee exists in SR. Wether it should or not, I take it as a
hint that in 2050, that is a viable design. The Marauder and the
Banshee is very similar - the marauder is slower, heavier, with
more cargo, but not radically different. It is a Banshee you can
rapell down from, more or less, and also get a few mortars or
whatever with you on. If you don't like it, don't use it. No problem.

I think both are weapons for use in brushfire wars, guerilla wars,
uprisings. Not battlefields. Not situatins where the opposition has
many 'real' weapons, or worse, knows how to use them. If they are
used long enough for that to change in any given area, they're in
trouble. They are anti-guerilla weapons.. or guerilla weapons, able
to strike hard and disappear. Not battlefield weapons. That's why
they're listed, too - SR isn't a battlefield/war game, but you
*might* get into a little guerilla warfare.

Before you wonder, I seriously doubt you'll find either in my
campaign.
--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
Message no. 27
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 20:11:44 -0500
At 06:24 AM 3/8/98 +0000, you wrote:
>That a monosword isn't as nasty as the monofilament whip is ok. It's
>not as dangerous to use either... what I'm curious about is why
>noone's managed to come up with a better sword than the katana... or
>even an equally good one? Is the Katana so superior? Logic says no.
>Logic also says designing SWORDS isn't a high priority for most
>corps, of course... :)

Well, go back and look at the description of the sword listed in the BBB.
It describes it as a shorter blade, "including some of the longer street
knives." It's not a broadsword, imo. It's a big f#cking knife. The
katana was included because A) if they hadn't people would have complained
that it wasn't there, B) Yakuza still carry them, C) it's a good example of
a real, full-size sword likely to find use today (it's light, but deadly
due to its edge, so you can use it even if you're not strong; comparable
weapons take a good sword arm to be worth carrying).

I do think they later changed their minds on what the 'sword' listing
represented.

losthalo
Message no. 28
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 20:16:18 -0500
At 12:16 PM 3/8/98 +0100, you wrote:
>Tell me, have you ever looked into military history? If things aren't
>supposed to look cute, why bother with full dress? With "smart-looking"
>uniforms? Ceremonial guards? (Just look at the British Army for that
>one...)

Because that's 1) separate from combat duty, and 2) meant to give them
opportunity to show the pride they have in themselves, and impress people.
Given that the armed forces aren't appreciated except when we suddenly
decide we need them, they do deserve some perks, imo.

losthalo
Message no. 29
From: Geoff Skellams <geoff.skellams@*********.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 12:35:36 +1000
On Shadowrun Discussion, The Vagabond[SMTP:nomad74@*******.COM] wrote:
> >the SF would use whatever vehicle could get them to the drop-zone.
> rapelling
> >from a helicopter is a good idea if they need to penetrate a thick
> jungle
> >canopy.
>
> Yes, I know. My question is: What kind of vehicle?

One other suggestion that hasn't come out in this discussion is some
form of tilt-rotor aircraft. They have a faster top speed than a
helicopter, yet have the low speed manoeuverability of a helicopter, not
to mention the ability to hover over the jungle for a rapelling
insertion.
Not having my copy of Rigger 2 with me, I can't tell you the
name of a suitable tilt-rotor, although the name "Osprey II" does stick
in my mind. I'm reasonably sure there are others listed as well.
As an aside, has the V-22 Osprey entered service with the USMC
yet? (Is it still going to?) I haven't been following the development of
military aviation as vigorously as I used to.

cheers
Geoff
--
Geoff Skellams R&D - Tower Software
Email Address: geoff.skellams@*********.com.au
Homepage: http://www.towersoft.com.au/staff/geoff/
ICQ Number: 2815165

"The Stoat - pound for pound the most dangerous creature on the face of
the planet"
- Chris Irwin, spouting crap during "Over Port & Cigars..."
Message no. 30
From: The Vagabond <nomad74@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 19:46:03 PST
[snip: Thanks for the advice!]
>As for more suggestions - what kind of special forces are they,
>anyway? Marine Recon? SEALs? Rangers? Whatever? ;>

Well, the Jello that is my campaign has yet to solidify(it probably
won't start until May- since that's when I'll be with my group again).
But I am thinking since the UCAS is so much more smaller the US, I
thought the Special Forces(That's Green Berets) and the Delta-Force
would be consolidated into one "group". Just called the Special Forces-
again, with the Green Berets. On the first run I'm working on, they
will be teaming up with a Ranger NPC, to act as someon who knows the
"lay of the land".
Once I've exhausted my mind(and yours <G>) for ideas, I'll probably
give them a reason to "retire" and become mercs/Shadowrunners.

>
>I'd suggest looking at some of the equipment available on the net.

I'm not a big net book fan because most of the ideas I've seen are
munchkin fodder(or potential munchkin fodder) but I try to keep an open
mind. If you recommend a URL, by all means post it. :)

>(Like the list of equipment made by Paul J. Adam. Now, I don't
>remember the URL, but there's some nice stuff for SpecOps soldiers in
>there. Combat fatigues, combat boots, webgear, bayonett etc.)

Like I said, post it I'll see. :) Thanks.



-Vagabond <nomad74@*******.com> <ICQ 4297972>
___________________________________________________________
"And all I lov'd, I lov'd alone."
-E.A. Poe


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 31
From: The Vagabond <nomad74@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 20:16:02 PST
>Recall that SF troops are much more often spotters than fighters.

Don't confuse Green Berets(Special Forces) with Army Rangers. Green
Berets' are specialists in Guerrilla Warfare.
I do agree that most one-squad mission would probably be used in
either recovery or recon, but how much fun would that be in the
Shadowrun world? Like I said, I look at SF as a combination of Green
Berets and Delta-Force.




-Vagabond <nomad74@*******.com> <ICQ 4297972>
___________________________________________________________
"And all I lov'd, I lov'd alone."
-E.A. Poe


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 32
From: JonSzeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 01:48:24 EST
"Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK> wrote,

> > Also, Would M-22a2s have a bayonet stud? Bayonets have been a
> >tradition in the military since the rifle was invented- I don't see a
> >reason why they'd stop now(although it'd look silly on a Colt Cobra).
>
> There, I don't know. I and a few other Commonwealth troops had a lengthy
> argument with a couple of gentlemen from the US Army, who were adamant
> that the bayonet was obsolete and useless. The H&K G11 had no way to fit
> a bayonet, either. So it's not impossible - even likely - that the UCAS
> would have abandoned it (remember, from the SSC, the UCAS Army adopted
> the G11 and was looking for a replacement in 2049-2050...)
>
> You'll still see the British armed forces fixing bayonets, though :)

Not all of us Yanks believe that the bayonet is useless. IMO, I think
the bayonet, as a weapon, isn't going to be at all useful in a
CONVENTIONAL combat scenario (such as Fulda Gap, the Korean DMZ, or
the Battle of 73 Easting). On the other hand, bayonets are much
more useful in Operations Other Than War (OOTW), things such as
Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and so on. Certainly, bayonets would be very
useful in urban warfare (MOUT), or a special-forces mission.

And besides, they're very useful for opening those MRE packs. :-)

-- Jon
Message no. 33
From: JonSzeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 01:47:41 EST
Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO> wrote,

> EW stuff: It *is* a military vehicle and a gunship to boot, so it has
> a fairly extensive EW suite.. but it isn't an AWACS or a fighter jet,
> so only has moderate to low military ratings.
>
> Sensors: Mil 2, ED, ECD, ECM, ECCM - mil 1.
> (19000DP)
> JESUS!!! let's downgrade that a bit, shall we? Hm. Ok. Let's *THINK*
> instead. It needs to go in quiet, and it needs to kick the shit out
> of targets in the vicinity.. it is not designed to fight jets or
> other high - ED or ECM targets. So, it should have a very good ED and
> sensor suite, the rest can be far less... if the OPFOR has ground
> vehicles with good ECM or ED it can fire optically instead.
>
> So... Sensor and ED mil - 2, ECD sec - 3, EC(C)M sec - 2.
> (Cost is not that much less but usefulness is far higher, IMO.).
> (DP 15550, 32 CF, 470 load)

Some thoughts (IMHO) about EW systems:

Just because it's a military vehicle, it doesn't necessarily mean that
every electronic warfare device should be a minimum of mil-standard.
Remember, somebody's tax dollars are paying for it, so some senator
(usually the one that lost the appropriations bid for his constituents)
will be harping on the generals for "wasting" money that could be better
used elsewhere (IOW, the senator's own pet pork project). Ergo, the old
procurement proverb: "Your weapon (and vehicle, and uniform, and radio,
and so on) was made by the lowest bidder."

Think for a minute what the Marauder's primary mission is: is it a
special purpose helicopter designed for inserting special forces deep
behind enemy lines (like the MH-53 Pave Low), a transport helicopter
for inserting regular air assault grunts (UH-60 Blackhawk), or your
basic all-around do-everything chopper (Mi-24 Hind)? Since we're
talking about Special Forces, let's assume the first one (covert
insertion) is the Marauder's primary mission.

OK, I can understand that the Marauder would need sophisticated
Sensors, but what does it really need it for? Following terrain
(especially at night) and advance warning of hostile vehicles (air and
ground), IMHO. If that's all it's needed for, does it really need a
top of the line sensor suite? IMHO, no, because having high Sensor
levels is necessary for making precision strikes (with smart bombs) or
for fighting against stealthy (hi-Signature) aircraft. Neither of
which fits the Marauder's primary mission. So the Marauder could
probably get away with possessing a Security-grade Sensor System.

Now ECM and ED: to use an analogy, ECM is a smokescreen, while ED is
a cloaking device. If you're going to make a stealthy insertion, which
are you going to use? Not ECM, IMHO --- that's sending up a big red
flag to the enemy, saying, "I'm doing something sneaky! You don't know
what it is, but I'm doing it!" You're going to use ED, and the more
sophisticated, the better. So I'd suggest dropping ECM altogether and
boosting ED as high as you can AFFORD.

What about ECCM and ECD? Well, the opposite applies: you don't need
ECD, because ECD is an anti-stealth system, and you're the one who's
sneaking around. OTOH, if the enemy suspects you're sneaking around,
they might use ECM to screw with your sensors, so you'll need ECCM for
that.

So here's what my suggested EW suite would look like:
Sensors: Security I (Rating 5) 250 pts
ED: Military II (Rating 5) 10,000 pts
ECCM: Military II (Rating 9) 5,000 pts
------
Total Cost 15,250 pts

OK, so I only saved 300 design points (out of a total of 15K +), but
now I've got a much stealthier helicopter that should be able to get
in, drop off the snake-biters, and get out, all without raising the
enemy's attention. And that's all the Marauder's supposed to do, isn't
it?

My $.02.

-- Jon
Message no. 34
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 12:48:12 +0100
Fade said on 15:31/ 8 Mar 98...

> If the Huey(Slick/Snake) concept worked so fine, how come USA lost
> Vietnam?

Hearts and minds.

> As for abandoning the concept.. I wasn't aware they had. They cannot
> afford to produce more of them, but then there has been *no* orders from
> the military for a few years now over there. The only weapons produced
> is for export, so *everything* is abandoned.

Not producing anything because you don't have any money, and abandoning a
concept are two entirely different things. The Russian army would love to
have thermal imagers on their T-72 and T-80s, but they rely on active IR
systems for lack of money. I'm sure they experimented with TI, but does
their not adopting it mean they tried the concept and abandoned it?

With helicopters, though, all recent Russian attack helicopter designs
have been true attack helicopters: not too big and carrying only the
necessary crew. The Mi-28, Ka-34, and Ka-52 (I think those are the
numbers) are good examples.

> There's a difference between the start of the campaign and the end of
> it here.. it's the inevitable weapon/counterweapon drill. At the
> start, there was few weapons able to effectively deal with the Hind..
> in two years, they lost about 300, and it was quite successful. But
> when the rebels got smarter and got better weapons, that tally rose
> significantly. In the last two years, they lost 3000.

And that's why they abandonned the Mi-24 idea. The tactics thought out
for the Hind involve it doing a high-speed run toward enemy positions to
strafe them, then dropping the infantry for a ground assault, and
supporting that same infantry. Which, on a modern battlefield, just about
equals shooting yourself through the head except it takes a bit longer.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
I want to see the ground give way, I want to watch it all go down.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 35
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 12:48:13 +0100
The Vagabond said on 20:16/ 8 Mar 98...

> >Recall that SF troops are much more often spotters than fighters.
>
> Don't confuse Green Berets(Special Forces) with Army Rangers. Green
> Berets' are specialists in Guerrilla Warfare.

AFAIK Green Berets are supposed to train locals to start a guerrilla
movement (if the US is fighting the country's legitimate government) or
train local militia (if the US is supporting the government), and help
them out in their initial battles. Then they move on to train others.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
I want to see the ground give way, I want to watch it all go down.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 36
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 12:48:13 +0100
Geoff Skellams said on 12:35/ 9 Mar 98...

> As an aside, has the V-22 Osprey entered service with the USMC
> yet? (Is it still going to?) I haven't been following the development of
> military aviation as vigorously as I used to.

AFAIK they have a number in service, but not very many.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
I want to see the ground give way, I want to watch it all go down.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 37
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 12:48:12 +0100
Fade said on 15:06/ 8 Mar 98...

> > And probably a bitch to fly when it comes to maneuvering the thing,
> > because there's so much stuff hanging onto it.
>
> Probably.. especially with fully loaded pylons. Shoulndn't that give
> a hit towards handling rather than signature? Or both? Usually, a
> fighter-bomber is far more maneuverable once it has spent its
> payload, for instance.
> (For those curious, yes I converted one regular firmpoint into a
> pylon mount.).

If you want to implement this, you get into all kinds of difficult rules
for hanging armament on an aircraft. IMHO it's better to simply ignore it;
the things I was referring to were the things you built into the machine,
like its armor and other stuff.

> Of course. But the pilot's cockpit is sealed from the grunts'
> cabin.(specified somewhere) and if they went into a hot area, I'd
> expect the troopers to carry ABC gear. Also, it's nice to be able to
> fly *through* such an area, even though you really do not want to
> land *in* it. And it's vital for high altitude flying. And so on.

Helicopters don't usually go to altitudes where pressurized cabins get
important. A Mil-24's ceiling is only 4.5 km, for example, while an
AH-64's is about a km lower.

> *snip Jack of all trades, master of none*
>
> As for being a jack of all trades/master of none, I agree. At the
> same time, the intended 'role' is fairly narrowly defined. It's when
> you use its capabilities in other areas as if it was a specialized
> heli that you get in trouble. It has mainly three uses that I can
> see.. as troop support, troop transport, and armored cargo transport
> (for isolated/surrounded firebases).

Fair enough, except that I feel that's not really "narrowly defined" --
troop transport and cargo transport are pretty similar, but add in troop
support and you have vastly different requirements.

> In those cases, especially behind enemy lines, you are susceptible to
> 'sniper' fire.. solo guerillas with missile launchers. Escorts is
> little protection (except that they can be shot down 'instead'.),

Or the escort can go in first and do some recon by fire. Most
likely, either the guerrillas take a shot at the escort to try and make it
stop firing at them, they get shot to pieces, or they retreat because
they'd rather live to fight another day. I think only very few would wait
for the transport to come by and shoot that down, especially if you also
use the same tactic when there is no escort following (so the enemy
doesn't know whether or not a valuable target comes after the armed
helicopter).

> while ED combined with armor can at least give an illusion of safety.
> It's an anti-guerilla chopper, not a frontline battlefield gunship

Same thing. Hang machinegun pods and FFAR launchers on an AH-1 or AH-64
and you have a machine for killing foot soldiers. Equip it with anti-tank
missiles and you have a tank destroyer. Hinds try to do three things at
once (troop carrier, fire support, and anti-tank) and does none of them
very well.

> Someone commented that it should be based on a utility chassis..
> possibly/probably. I read 'utility' as 'civilian' and thought it
> didn't sound right so I didn't look too closely at it. On the other
> hand the design looks fairly decent the way it is, so I see no reason
> to change it. But if you wish to make a utility chassis version, go
> ahead.

Utility machines form the backbone of most military helicopter forces --
look at pictures from Vietnam and 9 out of 10 will show a UH-1 _U_tility
_H_elicopter. Currently the US Army uses UH-60s in their place.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
I want to see the ground give way, I want to watch it all go down.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 38
From: AirWisp <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 09:55:47 EST
In a message dated 98-03-08 20:39:34 EST, you write:

> One other suggestion that hasn't come out in this discussion is some
> form of tilt-rotor aircraft. They have a faster top speed than a
> helicopter, yet have the low speed manoeuverability of a helicopter, not
> to mention the ability to hover over the jungle for a rapelling
> insertion.
> Not having my copy of Rigger 2 with me, I can't tell you the
> name of a suitable tilt-rotor, although the name "Osprey II" does stick
> in my mind. I'm reasonably sure there are others listed as well.
> As an aside, has the V-22 Osprey entered service with the USMC
> yet? (Is it still going to?) I haven't been following the development of
> military aviation as vigorously as I used to.

As last I heard the Osprey was being dropped as being too costly, though that
was roughly 8 years ago, things may have changed since then ...

As for something which could provide rapid transit in and out of a hot LZ ...
has anyone considered a cheap jump jet with lots of passengers ... the thing
can have up to 64 CF (IIRC) of space in itself, which could translate to an
additional 10 passengers in bucket seats (remember Starship Troopers) ... and
the thing does not need all sorts of weapons, it just needs plenty of armor
and extra speed to get in and out quickly (having a high accel is also
something nice) ...

Also ... if anyone wants to make any aircraft that is not VTOL capable to
become something VTOL capable just do the following ... find the aircrafts
total load and weight (using the Body to kilograms table in R2) ... then
compare that to a Jump Jet Fighter (as that is the engine you are using) ...
the number of Jump Jets in weight equal to the aircraft is the number of
additional power plants that are needed to make something capable of VTOL
landings and in some instances a limitedd amount of hovering ...

Mike
Message no. 39
From: AirWisp <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 09:59:11 EST
In a message dated 98-03-09 01:49:08 EST, you write:

> Not all of us Yanks believe that the bayonet is useless. IMO, I think
> the bayonet, as a weapon, isn't going to be at all useful in a
> CONVENTIONAL combat scenario (such as Fulda Gap, the Korean DMZ, or
> the Battle of 73 Easting). On the other hand, bayonets are much
> more useful in Operations Other Than War (OOTW), things such as
> Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and so on. Certainly, bayonets would be very
> useful in urban warfare (MOUT), or a special-forces mission.
>
> And besides, they're very useful for opening those MRE packs. :-)
>

Especially if the MRE's happen to come from the opposing forces ... though I
hear that nowadays the MRE's are actually quite respectable now ... and should
be called MCE's ... Meals Coveted by the Enemy ... :)

Mike
Message no. 40
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 08:10:10 -0700
Gurth wrote:
/
/ Geoff Skellams said on 12:35/ 9 Mar 98...
/
/ > As an aside, has the V-22 Osprey entered service with the USMC
/ > yet? (Is it still going to?) I haven't been following the development of
/ > military aviation as vigorously as I used to.
/
/ AFAIK they have a number in service, but not very many.

Nope. They have 3 or 4 of them built, but they're still in the test
stage. Things were pushed back when one of them crashed last year.
And congress is still nitpicking the funding for the Osprey.

-David
--
"The best way to cheer yourself is to try to cheer somebody else up."
- Mark Twain
--
ShadowRN GridSec
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 41
From: "Leszek Karlik, aka Mike" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 23:12:39 +0000
On 9 Mar 98, Jonas Bille disseminated foul capitalist propaganda by
writing:

[...]
> Therefore if you use your bayonet as a general utility knife and
> perhaps in emergency af self defence carry one. (remember a mountet
> bayonet has reach +1!) But in a Shadowrun gaming situation where you
> seldom run out of ammo while your enemy drooles in your face I
> advice would be carry a blade because it is a good tool and a last
> resort - but a mountet bayonet Naah. I wouldn't.

AAAAH... Not here... I'm tired enough of the arguments on
sci.military. ;>>>

(Oh, and personally, I would prefer to just stick the drooling enemy
with a bayonet, than spend a Simple Action readying the blade and
then attack on a next phase. <grin>)

BTW: Your reply-to field is overriding the list.
<FNORD>
To GridSec: HE'S MINE!
</FNORD>


Leszek Karlik, aka Mike - trrkt@*****.onet.pl; http://www.wlkp.top.pl/~bear/mike;
Amber fan and Star Wars junkie; UIN 6947998; WTF TKD; FIAWOL; YMMV; IMAO; SNAFU; TANJ
Geek Code v3.1 GL/O d- s+: a19 C+++ W-(++) N+++ K? w(---) O@ M- PS+(+++) PE Y+
PGP- !t--- 5+(-) X- R*+++>$ tv-- b++++ D+ G-- e h--*! !r-- !y-*
God is dead! - I'm sorry, officer, I didn't see him.
Message no. 42
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 18:14:18 -0500
At 11:12 PM 3/9/98 +0000, you wrote:

><FNORD>
>To GridSec: HE'S MINE!
></FNORD>
>
AH!! NOOOO!!! I don't WANT to see the fnords!! I'm tired of seeing them
every-freakin'-where!

A karma point to the first person, other than Leszek fnord Karlik, aka
Mike, to tell me accurately where this silly fnord thing originally came
from...bonus point if you tell the basic legend/reason behind it.

Erik J.

"Dis, you're a bitch!" -me
Message no. 43
From: Nexx <Nexx@********.NET>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 17:57:44 -0600
> A karma point to the first person, other than Leszek fnord Karlik, aka
> Mike, to tell me accurately where this silly fnord thing originally came
> from...bonus point if you tell the basic legend/reason behind it.

Principa Discordia. The explanation that I saw was from the Illuminatus!
Trilogy, in that we're hypnotized in grade school to enter into a state of
low-grade panic whenever we see it, so we won't think about the words around
it. It keeps people just slightly annoyed and not thinking about how the
government is shafting them. Fnords aren't included in advertising, sending
the message to our brains that only in consumption are we safe from the fnords.

Fnord!

Hail Eris!

***************
Rev. Mark Hall, Bardagh
aka Pope Nexx Many-Scars
ICQ 8108186
************
I often think I would put this belief in magic from me if I could, for I have
come to see or to imagine, in men and women, in houses, in handicrafts, in
nearly all sights and sounds, a certain evil, a certain ugliness, that comes
from the slow perishing through centuries of a quality of mind that made this
belief and its evidences common over the world.
-William Butler Yeats "Magic"
***********
Am Moireach Mor!
Message no. 44
From: Jeremiah Stevens <jeremiah@********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 19:08:49 -0500
On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, Erik Jameson wrote:

> At 11:12 PM 3/9/98 +0000, you wrote:
>
> ><FNORD>
> >To GridSec: HE'S MINE!
> ></FNORD>
> >
> AH!! NOOOO!!! I don't WANT to see the fnords!! I'm tired of seeing them
> every-freakin'-where!
>
> A karma point to the first person, other than Leszek fnord Karlik, aka
> Mike, to tell me accurately where this silly fnord thing originally came
> from...bonus point if you tell the basic legend/reason behind it.

FNORD has a long and colored history, but it is basically the NERPS of the
Illuminati world. It stands for FOundation for Neo-Ontological Research
and Development.
Message no. 45
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 23:03:57 +0000
In article <66c034a6.350390ba@***.com>, JonSzeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
writes
>"Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK> wrote,
>> There, I don't know. I and a few other Commonwealth troops had a lengthy
>> argument with a couple of gentlemen from the US Army, who were adamant
>> that the bayonet was obsolete and useless. The H&K G11 had no way to fit
>> a bayonet, either. So it's not impossible - even likely - that the UCAS
>> would have abandoned it (remember, from the SSC, the UCAS Army adopted
>> the G11 and was looking for a replacement in 2049-2050...)
>>
>> You'll still see the British armed forces fixing bayonets, though :)
>
>Not all of us Yanks believe that the bayonet is useless. IMO, I think
>the bayonet, as a weapon, isn't going to be at all useful in a
>CONVENTIONAL combat scenario (such as Fulda Gap, the Korean DMZ, or
>the Battle of 73 Easting). On the other hand, bayonets are much
>more useful in Operations Other Than War (OOTW), things such as
>Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and so on. Certainly, bayonets would be very
>useful in urban warfare (MOUT), or a special-forces mission.

Urban warfare, and the final stages of an assault in _any_ campaign -
even 73 Easting - is exactly where a bayonet is most useful. You're in
an enemy trench or in a building, , firing into anything that might hide
a hostile soldier, when a (fill in the blank) soldier appears. This
being a trench, he's less than ten feet away, and you're both startled.

You recover first (or else you're dead) and you put the frontsight on
his chest and fire. And the rifle gives a sad little click. Out of ammo,
stoppage, dud round, who knows?

With a bayonet you scream, lunge and plant six inches of steel in his
stomach (and hope he either is still surprised or else misses, but what
the hell, bad odds are better than none).

Without one, you're halfway through cock-hook-look or you're fumbling
for that backup weapon you've got securely holstered or sheathed
somewhere when he perforates you with high-velocity jacketed lead.

>And besides, they're very useful for opening those MRE packs. :-)

Carried a cheap Chinese copy of a USMC K-Bar for routine tasks like that
(and handy it was too: a good utility knife). Bayonets were for killing
people.


I agree with you, Jon, I personally feel a rifle without bayonet lugs
and a decent blade to mount on them is not fit for military service; but
your opinion does not appear to be universally held within the US
services.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 46
From: Benjamin Eriksen <benjamin.eriksen@******.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 10:03:06 +0100
At 09:59 09.03.98 EST, you wrote:

>> And besides, they're very useful for opening those MRE packs. :-)
>>
>
>Especially if the MRE's happen to come from the opposing forces ... though I
>hear that nowadays the MRE's are actually quite respectable now ... and
should
>be called MCE's ... Meals Coveted by the Enemy ... :)
>
>Mike
>
>
As opposed to Meals Rejected by Ethiopians?

B.
Message no. 47
From: AirWisp <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 09:59:40 EST
In a message dated 98-03-10 04:05:58 EST, you write:

> >Especially if the MRE's happen to come from the opposing forces ... though
I
> >hear that nowadays the MRE's are actually quite respectable now ... and
> should
> >be called MCE's ... Meals Coveted by the Enemy ... :)
> >
> >Mike
> >
> >
> As opposed to Meals Rejected by Ethiopians?

Nope, Meals Rejected by the Enemy (which is why you try and get their MREs
first) ... :P

Mike
Message no. 48
From: John Penta <johndevil@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 17:33:04 -0500
>Some thoughts (IMHO) about EW systems:
>
>Just because it's a military vehicle, it doesn't necessarily mean that
>every electronic warfare device should be a minimum of mil-standard.
>Remember, somebody's tax dollars are paying for it, so some senator
>(usually the one that lost the appropriations bid for his
>constituents)
>will be harping on the generals for "wasting" money that could be
>better
>used elsewhere (IOW, the senator's own pet pork project). Ergo, the
>old
>procurement proverb: "Your weapon (and vehicle, and uniform, and
>radio,
>and so on) was made by the lowest bidder."
<grins> while this Maaay be just a bit OT(Gridsec:thwap, ok, but not TOO
hard.:)), a note from somebody who's dad is working in military
procurement for the US Army...MOST projects today, in development, are
hitting the Several Hundred Million Dollar mark easily. To quote
indirectly from my dad, one of the projects he worked on was a project
who's total budget was something like $1 BILLION dollars, all told(If I
remember(it was from when I was 3-8 years old(now 14)), that included
R&D, prototypes, manufacturing, testing, and initial deployment.). That
was for a friggin' RADIO, if I heard him right. So, for SR...all told,
nowadays they're made by whoever has the track record, and screw price,
within limits. In 205x, it wouldn't be too hard to see FB reps and Ares
reps slogging it out behind the scenes for the cash. They're GOING to
pump in the neato milspec stuff, if only cause those in the field will
scream to no end about it otherwise. Security-III ECM won't work versus
that milspec missile that the other guy's chucking at yer EFA.

This spam has been produced by:
John Penta
johndevil@****.com

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 49
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 00:29:43 +0000
In article <19980312.170030.3374.0.johndevil@****.com>, John Penta
<johndevil@****.COM> writes
><grins> while this Maaay be just a bit OT(Gridsec:thwap, ok, but not TOO
>hard.:)), a note from somebody who's dad is working in military
>procurement for the US Army...MOST projects today, in development, are
>hitting the Several Hundred Million Dollar mark easily. To quote
>indirectly from my dad, one of the projects he worked on was a project
>who's total budget was something like $1 BILLION dollars, all told(If I
>remember(it was from when I was 3-8 years old(now 14)), that included
>R&D, prototypes, manufacturing, testing, and initial deployment.).

Depending on the system, that sounds about right.

>That
>was for a friggin' RADIO, if I heard him right.

You don't want to know what a military radio can do. This isn't some
walkie-talkie, the modern kit lets you send a one-second coded,
frequency-agile burst that (for example) tells your CO exactly where you
are, how much food and ammo you've got, how many enemy you see, where
they're going, what vehicles they're in... All this in a man-portable
package that can survive being dropped in a river and having a Land
Rover driven over it. It doesn't come cheap...


>So, for SR...all told,
>nowadays they're made by whoever has the track record, and screw price,
>within limits.

With eight megacorps, they're developed and built by whoever can offer
the best compromise of quality and price. The competition forces the
prices right down.

As a current defence contractor, you don't get to say "screw price". You
make your product too expensive, and the MoD buy an off-the-shelf item
instead. Less capable, sure, but it works and they can afford it.
Budgets are finite. Make your gear too expensive and nobody will buy it,
however marvellous it might be on paper, because there's always an
alternative.

>In 205x, it wouldn't be too hard to see FB reps and Ares
>reps slogging it out behind the scenes for the cash. They're GOING to
>pump in the neato milspec stuff, if only cause those in the field will
>scream to no end about it otherwise. Security-III ECM won't work versus
>that milspec missile that the other guy's chucking at yer EFA.

But not every military aircraft needs that level of protection, and not
every missile fired at you will be state-of-the-art tech. Cost-
effectiveness is and always will be a _major_ driver in procurement
decisions.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 50
From: JonSzeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 01:43:38 EST
John Penta <johndevil@****.COM> wrote,

> So, for SR...all told,
> nowadays they're made by whoever has the track record, and screw price,
> within limits. In 205x, it wouldn't be too hard to see FB reps and Ares
> reps slogging it out behind the scenes for the cash. They're GOING to
> pump in the neato milspec stuff, if only cause those in the field will
> scream to no end about it otherwise. Security-III ECM won't work versus
> that milspec missile that the other guy's chucking at yer EFA.

I think you may have missed the point. The point I was trying to make,
was that the SF-assault helicopter in question does not NEED all those
electronic bells & whistles. Not for its primary mission.

Sure, advanced EW suites are good for dodging incoming missiles, but the
helicopter in question wasn't SUPPOSED to be dodging incoming missiles,
at least not on a regular basis. (And if it was likely to expect such,
then it should have been escorted by some sort of combat aircraft to
perform a SEAD mission).

Another point that I was also trying to drive home is to de-bunk this
perceived mythology that "mil-spec" automatically equates to
"kick-@$$ state-of-the-art." As a former end-user of mil-spec
equipment, I can attest that some of the equipment I used was NOT
"state-of-the-art" (my old unit, in fact, STILL has not been fielded
with SINCGARS radios and is still using Vietnam-era radios for
communications).

Just because a piece of equipment is designed exclusively for military
use does not necessarily mean that it uses the most advanced
technology. If a vehicle needs Military-III Sensors to accomplish its
primary mission, so be it. But if Security-I can get the job done with
excellent results, why get something more advanced? You don't buy a
Pentium just to do the job of a pocket calculator, do you? Why should
the military buy a 6 million nuyen system, when a 75,000 nuyen system
does the job just fine?

-- Jon
Message no. 51
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 11:26:15 +0100
JonSzeto said on 1:43/13 Mar 98...

> Another point that I was also trying to drive home is to de-bunk this
> perceived mythology that "mil-spec" automatically equates to
> "kick-@$$ state-of-the-art." As a former end-user of mil-spec
> equipment, I can attest that some of the equipment I used was NOT
> "state-of-the-art" (my old unit, in fact, STILL has not been fielded
> with SINCGARS radios and is still using Vietnam-era radios for
> communications).

Anyone who doesn't believe this, try to find out what kind of processors
are used in many digital fire control systems (for example in MBTs) that
are currently in use. Many of these were designed in the late 1970s/early
1980s, so you'll be lucky to find a 286 or equivalent processor, let alone
something newer like a 486 or Pentium. Now who of us uses a computer with
a CPU that old (except maybe Bull and Spike? :) However, this isn't that
much of a problem, because the systems are quite capable of doing what
they have to do, and that's what counts.

In SR this translates to the military using equipment often designed in
the 2030s or 2040s, and since FASA mentions very low budgets, my guess is
probably even earlier -- they could still be using the stuff being fielded
today. Perhaps B-52s are still in use, even, since the USAF intends to
keep them until the 2030s (the first one flew in the early 1950s!) but
with tight budgets I can see that being extended for quite a while.

> You don't buy a Pentium just to do the job of a pocket calculator, do
> you?

The pocket calculator would be more accurate anyway *grin*

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
Why live in the world when you can live in your head?
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 52
From: Stefan <casanova@******.PASSAGEN.SE>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 19:18:35 +0000
> Anyone who doesn't believe this, try to find out what kind of processors
> are used in many digital fire control systems (for example in MBTs) that
> are currently in use. Many of these were designed in the late 1970s/early
> 1980s, so you'll be lucky to find a 286 or equivalent processor, let alone
> something newer like a 486 or Pentium. Now who of us uses a computer with
> a CPU that old (except maybe Bull and Spike? :) However, this isn't that
> much of a problem, because the systems are quite capable of doing what
> they have to do, and that's what counts.

First off all you don't use Pentium processors or any kind of x86
CPUs in pretty much anything but computers since they are just to
unreliable, flawed and bugs.

If you build something new and cool that costs millions of bucks to
create you don't wanna use a new cool cpu that has never been used
before ... you use old and tested equipment.

The new swedish fighter JAS 39 Gripen uses an old 680x0 CPU and it
does the job perfectly. There is really no point in using a high
speed cpu in most "common" appliences since it will never use all
that power anyway.

/Stefan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Frag you and the datastream you came on!" - Sinjin the decker
------------------------------------------------------------------------
... E-Mail .............................. casanova@***.passagen.se ...
... HomePage .............................. http://hsl.home.ml.org ...
... HomePage ................... http://www.bugsoft.hik.se/sl11ls/ ...
... ICQ .................................................. 1403212 ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 53
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 21:47:23 +0000
In article <199803131818.TAA19826@******.passagen.se>, Stefan
<casanova@******.PASSAGEN.SE> writes
>The new swedish fighter JAS 39 Gripen uses an old 680x0 CPU and it
>does the job perfectly. There is really no point in using a high
>speed cpu in most "common" appliences since it will never use all
>that power anyway.

The other point is, you use dedicated subsystems. Sure, the central
computer controlling it all might be a 68000 or an early x86, but the
signal processing in the radar is done by SHARCs or some other serious
chip designed explicitly for the role.

The massive processor power is needed in the sensors and
countermeasures: the control and the tactical decision making, based on
that processed input, is relatively undemanding.

(BTW, I saw the emergency generator for JAS39 on test at Lucas
Aerospace, and the aircraft at Farnborough '96. That's a _good_ fighter)

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 54
From: David Hinkley <dhinkley@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 23:41:37 +0000
On 9 Mar 98 at 1:48, JonSzeto wrote:

> Not all of us Yanks believe that the bayonet is useless. IMO, I
> think the bayonet, as a weapon, isn't going to be at all useful in a
> CONVENTIONAL combat scenario (such as Fulda Gap, the Korean DMZ, or
> the Battle of 73 Easting). On the other hand, bayonets are much more
> useful in Operations Other Than War (OOTW), things such as Somalia,
> Haiti, Bosnia, and so on. Certainly, bayonets would be very useful
> in urban warfare (MOUT), or a special-forces mission.
>
> And besides, they're very useful for opening those MRE packs. :-)
>
> -- Jon
>
Hereis another Yank who belives that bayonet has utility. As to
the existance of a bayonet lug it didn't stop the U.S. Army to
issue them to troops armed with the M1911A1 .45 Auto pistol.

As to other uses, do not forget riot control.




David Hinkley
dhinkley@***.org

====================================================
Those who are too intelligent to engage in politics
are punished by being governed by those who are not
--Plato
Message no. 55
From: David Hinkley <dhinkley@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 23:41:37 +0000
On 8 Mar 98 at 15:31, Fade wrote:

> > >As far as I can tell, the basic idea of using armored gunships
> > >as troop transports in the way the Russians used the Hind
> > >in Afghanistan is sound.
> >
> > _Heh_ If it's so sound, how come they lost, and how come they abandoned
> > the concept?
>
> If the Huey(Slick/Snake) concept worked so fine, how come USA lost
> Vietnam? The same pointless question.. the answer has nothing to do
> with what kind of heli configuration they used. As for abandoning
> the concept.. I wasn't aware they had. They cannot afford to produce
> more of them, but then there has been *no* orders from the military
> for a few years now over there. The only weapons produced is for
> export, so *everything* is abandoned.


The armed helecopter is the result of an internal political desision
made in the United States Department of Defence at the time the US
Air Force was formed. The 1947 Key West Agreement stated that the
U.S. Army could not have any armed fixed wing aircraft. All armed fix
wing aircraft were to be under the control of the newly spun-off Air
Force. Apparently nothing was said about helocopters, possibly
because they were concidered a untested experiment of questionable
value. After a few unoffical experments during the Korean War the
Army began to develop the armed helocopter as a replacement for
fixed wing ground support aircraft. The Army needed to do so because
the pilot types in charge of the Air Farce only saw two kinds of
aircraft as worth developing, fighters and strategic bombers (only
among SAC types). But they also would not let the Army have armed
fixed wing aircraft. The result was things like the OV-10A, in Marine
service it is an armed observation aircraft capable of ground support
on it own, the Army version lacks the guns and hard points. As I
understand it the A-10 was "forced" on the Air Force, who are trying
to replace them with a fighter-bomber. While this is not good news
for the American gunts it who have a need for good ground support,
should let our British Allies breathe easier.

The big surprise out of all this is that there does seem to be a
place for the armed helocopter in low intensity warfare (there is a
question of survivablity on a regular battlefield).



David Hinkley
dhinkley@***.org

====================================================
Those who are too intelligent to engage in politics
are punished by being governed by those who are not
--Plato
Message no. 56
From: The Bookworm <Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 11:23:51 -0600
On Fri, 13 Mar 1998, Paul J. Adam wrote:

> >That
> >was for a friggin' RADIO, if I heard him right.
> You don't want to know what a military radio can do. This isn't some
> walkie-talkie, the modern kit lets you send a one-second coded,
> frequency-agile burst that (for example) tells your CO exactly where you
> are, how much food and ammo you've got, how many enemy you see, where
> they're going, what vehicles they're in... All this in a man-portable
> package that can survive being dropped in a river and having a Land
> Rover driven over it. It doesn't come cheap...

Dont foget the ability to link onto most of the computers used by the
military and act as a radio modem/network card. You want to get scary,
well the M1-A2 is suposed to have an intergraded data bus system that ties
together the GPS, Targeting Computer, Radios, Laser range finders, ect.
AND its all smaller than the old stuff so they were able to add a
computerized map system that will overlay the positions of all the
freindly units in the area (well the ones on the wireless network) and any
enemy positions the other comanders see and enter into the system. Then
the CO can outline where he wants people to go on the map and send it to
the other comanders all without a singel voice comunication. Oh and the
SIGARS also alow them to interface with the artilery and Airforce nets and
pass on tageting information. All those neet toys for intergrating drones
in R2 aint such a new(2060) idea after all are they:).

Thomas Price
aka The Bookworm
thomas.m.price@*******.edu
tmprice@***********.com
Message no. 57
From: Danyel N Woods <9604801@********.AC.NZ>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:36:59 +1200
Quoth The Bookworm (0525 18-03-98):
(SLICE) -
the M1-A2 is suposed to have an intergraded data bus system that
ties
together the GPS, Targeting Computer, Radios, Laser range
finders, ect.
AND its all smaller than the old stuff so they were able to add
a
computerized map system that will overlay the positions of all
the
freindly units in the area (well the ones on the wireless
network) and any
enemy positions the other comanders see and enter into the
system. Then
the CO can outline where he wants people to go on the map and
send it to
the other comanders all without a singel voice comunication. Oh
and the
SIGARS also alow them to interface with the artilery and
Airforce nets and
pass on tageting information. All those neet toys for
intergrating drones
in R2 aint such a new(2060) idea after all are they:).

What Bookworm's referring to with 'without a single voice communication'
is IVIS - the Inter-Vehicular Information System. Really wizzer drek.
BattleTAC TM? A pale shadow.

I even understand that the US Army is looking to integrate a GPS
receiver, an IVIS unit, a miniature radio, and a smart-link-equivalent
into a standard grunt helmet with minimum weight penalties. Starship
Troopers? Already happening, chummer. Give a SpecFor team this rig,
the usual aug & amp jobs (reflexes, sensory mods - eye-cameras and audio
amps, including recorders for the intelligence ops), some decent
firepower, and the advantage of true training (not shadowrunner
on-the-job stuff), and they'll depopulate the shadows in short order.

(OT, has anyone thought of using some of the Starship Troopers movie in
a campaign? I've got a nasty mutant bug spirit in mind the next time
the team goes out into the Mojave...)

Danyel Woods
9604801@********.ac.nz
Hi, I'm Chucky. Wanna play?
Message no. 58
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 11:44:45 +1000
Danyel N Woods writes:
>I even understand that the US Army is looking to integrate a GPS
>receiver, an IVIS unit, a miniature radio, and a smart-link-equivalent
>into a standard grunt helmet with minimum weight penalties. Starship
>Troopers? Already happening, chummer. Give a SpecFor team this rig,
>the usual aug & amp jobs (reflexes, sensory mods - eye-cameras and audio
>amps, including recorders for the intelligence ops), some decent
>firepower, and the advantage of true training (not shadowrunner
>on-the-job stuff), and they'll depopulate the shadows in short order.


Give a SpecFor team this rig, etc, and send them into the shadows and watch
them get mauled by a second-tier gang hungry for their hardware... :)

A special forces squadron are tough, but no-body is invincible.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 59
From: Danyel N Woods <9604801@********.AC.NZ>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 15:25:49 +1200
Quoth Robert Watkins (1345 18-03-98):

(SLICE my post)

Give a SpecFor team this rig, etc, and send them into the shadows and
watch
them get mauled by a second-tier gang hungry for their hardware... :)

A special forces squadron are tough, but no-body is invincible.

Maybe not - but Special Forces types are pretty close. Do you honestly
think a bunch of gutterpunks with no training, no speedware, and no
teamwork would have a prayer against the SAS (or even Green Berets?)
*humourless laugh* If a second-tier gang could take a SpecFor team,
they wouldn't be called 'Special Forces'. About the only thing the gang
would get out of such an assault is busted heads - or a one-way ticket
to 'Gangsta's Paradise' (apologies to Coolio).


Danyel Woods

9604801@********.ac.nz

Hi, I'm Chucky. Wanna play?
Message no. 60
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:52:31 +1000
Daynel N Woods writes:
>Quoth Robert Watkins (1345 18-03-98):
>(SLICE my post)
>
>>Give a SpecFor team this rig, etc, and send them into the shadows and
>>watch
>>them get mauled by a second-tier gang hungry for their hardware... :)
>>
>>A special forces squadron are tough, but no-body is invincible.
>
>Maybe not - but Special Forces types are pretty close. Do you honestly
>think a bunch of gutterpunks with no training, no speedware, and no
>teamwork would have a prayer against the SAS (or even Green Berets?)
>*humourless laugh* If a second-tier gang could take a SpecFor team,
>they wouldn't be called 'Special Forces'. About the only thing the gang
>would get out of such an assault is busted heads - or a one-way ticket
>to 'Gangsta's Paradise' (apologies to Coolio).


On the gang's turf? Yeah, I'd kiss the Special Forces team goodbye.
"Gutterpunks" in a cyberpunk setting live in a world of constant violence.
No training? Living on the streets in a gang is a lot of training. No
speedware? Enhanced reactions aren't the be-all and end-all. How are
enhanced reactions going to help you survive when you're pinned down on
three sides, and the fourth is a brick wall? No teamwork? Gangs have a lot
of teamwork involved, now, and they would have even more in a cyberpunk
gang.

A gang isn't just a group of teenage punks with knives. A second- or even
third-tier gang would consist of a lot of street veterans, with moderately
decent equipment (submachine guns at least, and access to heavier stuff if
they need). They would be poor on formal training, but they would have
picked up a lot of stuff through experience, and all you need is one or two
'lieutenants' who have read up a bit on small-unit tactics (and the gangs
would have such people), and that would increase their cohesiveness a lot.

The gangs are engaged constantly in low-level warfare. If they weren't
capable, especially in their own terrain, they'd have been eliminated
already.

Not to mention that it is quoted in the Seattle Sourcebook that every now
and then the Metroplex Guards go out to try to "lay down the law" and
routinely get their butts kicked. Yeah, on their own turf, a gang would be
something for a special-forces team to be VERY wary of.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 61
From: THADEUSv20 <THADEUSv20@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 18:36:48 EST
In a message dated 98-03-17 22:26:42 EST, you write:

<< Maybe not - but Special Forces types are pretty close. Do you honestly
think a bunch of gutterpunks with no training, no speedware, and no
teamwork would have a prayer against the SAS (or even Green Berets?)
*humourless laugh* If a second-tier gang could take a SpecFor team,
they wouldn't be called 'Special Forces'. About the only thing the gang
would get out of such an assault is busted heads - or a one-way ticket
to 'Gangsta's Paradise' (apologies to Coolio).
>>
Then how come it happens to shadowrunner all the time (personal experience).
Some shadowrunners are the equivalent of spec forces teams. The gangs have
home ground advantage and numbers advantage. Hell if a special forces team
showed in neighborhood and attacked anybody, Everybody would want to know why
the yak, the mafia , the corps, fixers, lone star, and Carl the drunk bum.
The shadows are an important part of the 2050 economy. Hell even the gov't
uses the shadows.
Message no. 62
From: Danyel N Woods <9604801@********.AC.NZ>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:29:11 +1200
Quoth THADEUSv20 (1137 19-03-98):
(SLICE my post)
Then how come it happens to shadowrunner all the time (personal
experience).
Some shadowrunners are the equivalent of spec forces teams. The
gangs have
home ground advantage and numbers advantage. Hell if a special
forces team
showed in neighborhood and attacked anybody, Everybody would
want to know why
the yak, the mafia , the corps, fixers, lone star, and Carl the
drunk bum.
The shadows are an important part of the 2050 economy. Hell
even the gov't
uses the shadows.

I'm not saying that the SF teams wouldn't get hurt, and maybe they
wouldn't survive much past mission completion, but the simple truth is
that Special Forces have the gangs out-classed in almost every category,
and concede only numbers and home-turf knowledge (and maybe firepower,
dependent on the gang's resources). I mean, really, how many gangers
have the fire-discipline to make a clip last for fifteen targets? Hell,
they'd be lucky to hit their man with an entire clip!

As to Shadowrunners being the equivalent of Special Forces...SF of the
shadows, maybe. The Shadowrun Military Project site (can someone supply
the address? I misplaced it) has an essay that should clear up that
sort of misapprehension.

And finally, I rather doubt that the government would use Special Forces
specifically to go after 'runners, unless a particular group had done
something to make themselves particularly obnoxious (Who knows, maybe
they geeked a UCAS senator - or someone fingered them for disintegrating
Dunky!). If they did, the SF would just strike-and-fade on that one
group and let word slip: 'These guys crossed the line. Don't mess with
Uncle Sam.' I'm not suggesting that anyone would try to wipe out the
shadow-world entirely; as you said, it's too useful. But for specific
purposes, they would make a heavy impact. GMs could use them to remind
PCs that, no matter how fast/quiet/good you think you are, there's
always someone better.


Danyel Woods

964801@********.ac.nz

Hi, I'm Chucky. Wanna play?
Message no. 63
From: The Bookworm <Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 23:16:10 -0600
On Wed, 18 Mar 1998, Danyel N Woods wrote:

> What Bookworm's referring to with 'without a single voice communication'
> is IVIS - the Inter-Vehicular Information System. Really wizzer drek.
> BattleTAC TM? A pale shadow.

Thankyou. I knew it had to have a acronym but couldnt rember it off the
top of my head and my refrence was back at home packed away. The US army
is trying to install hte sucker on anything they are building or can
convince congress to upgrade. Just hope they have some wizzer Crypto on
it. If you could tap into the comunications link you could find out just
about everything about the US forces locations and strength....

> I even understand that the US Army is looking to integrate a GPS
> receiver, an IVIS unit, a miniature radio, and a smart-link-equivalent
> into a standard grunt helmet with minimum weight penalties.

Well right now its still a backpack/helmet/gunmounted system but its
getting smaller and sturdier all the time... So far i have seen such toys
as night vision cameras mounted as the sight on a M-16 linked to a heads
up display. You can stick it around a corner to take a look see and mabey
even get some decently accurat fire without exposing most of you body...
Message no. 64
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 00:46:15 +0000
In article <06a301bd5221$47d239c0$624811ac@********.mincom.oz.au>,
Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM> writes
>On the gang's turf? Yeah, I'd kiss the Special Forces team goodbye.
>"Gutterpunks" in a cyberpunk setting live in a world of constant violence.
>No training? Living on the streets in a gang is a lot of training.

Having done some urban warfare training, I'd beg to differ.

> No
>speedware? Enhanced reactions aren't the be-all and end-all. How are
>enhanced reactions going to help you survive when you're pinned down on
>three sides, and the fourth is a brick wall? No teamwork? Gangs have a lot
>of teamwork involved, now, and they would have even more in a cyberpunk
>gang.

The team go in at night. Silent until they're compromised, then they're
making heavy use of firepower, flash and concussion grenades. What
night-vision gear do these gang members have? What personal comms gear?
How many sit watch during the night, and how many are waking up to
gunfire and explosions and screams in the darkness outside?

Remember, the SF troops choose the time they hit. They have drones out
for surveillance and are using BattleTac, giving them a far better
tactical picture than the gang: the gangers are at grave risk of
fratricide, the SF troops know where their teammates are.

>Not to mention that it is quoted in the Seattle Sourcebook that every now
>and then the Metroplex Guards go out to try to "lay down the law" and
>routinely get their butts kicked.

A reservist military unit, engaging civilians in a policing role? Of
course they "get their butts kicked". But that's because, in that role,
the Guard have to walk around showing the flag and patrolling and
generally making like cops, and they aren't allowed grenades, and they
have to shout things like "Halt or I fire!" before shooting in anything
except a hot contact. That's like comparing a patrolman walking a beat
to a SWAT team.

>Yeah, on their own turf, a gang would be
>something for a special-forces team to be VERY wary of.

Agreed: but the gang are still going to take heavy casualties and almost
certainly lose any planned engagement against a SF team, and the idea is
to avoid unplanned encounters or else to disengage as rapidly as
possible.
--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 65
From: John Penta <johndevil@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 16:45:31 -0500
*grins* on IVIS....yep. COOL system. my dad helped on one of the design
things....I believe it's a sat-link, though. And, yep,they're trying to
integrate EVERYTHING(GPS, IVIS, comms, etc.) into the new helmet for the
vehicle crewmen(at least combat vehicle crewmen), all the while
replicating what'd they'd see in the tank. How'd I know? Well...as a
prelim design before he went down to Ft. Knox last week...had me grab
stats out of my Armored Fist 2 manual. Scary.:) They are getting
basically the same thing designed for infantry, but I doubt they'll get
anything close to a smartlink...but then again...with the new helmet
using pull-down menus(Don't ask me how you use em), and other
stuff....just maybe they can. no bets though.

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 66
From: Danyel N Woods <9604801@********.AC.NZ>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 14:23:19 +1200
Quoth John Penta (0946 21-3-98):

> *grins* on IVIS....yep. COOL system. my dad helped on one of the
> design
> things....I believe it's a sat-link, though. And, yep,they're trying
> to
> integrate EVERYTHING(GPS, IVIS, comms, etc.) into the new helmet for
> the
> vehicle crewmen(at least combat vehicle crewmen), all the while
> replicating what'd they'd see in the tank. How'd I know? Well...as a
> prelim design before he went down to Ft. Knox last week...had me grab
> stats out of my Armored Fist 2 manual. Scary.:) They are getting
> basically the same thing designed for infantry, but I doubt they'll
> get
> anything close to a smartlink...but then again...with the new helmet
> using pull-down menus(Don't ask me how you use em), and other
> stuff....just maybe they can. no bets though.
>
The smartlink might have been an exaggeration, all right. But then
again - given another advance in miniaturisation, who wants to say a
projected-point-of-impact sight isn't possible? And I imagine the
pull-down menus are operated by eye-movement trackers and/or voice
command. Tom Clancy's primer Armoured Warfare explains it more in
depth.

(Incidentally: your father helped design the system, had access to
classified details, and he gets the stats out of a computer-game manual?
Freaky.)

Danyel Woods
9604801@********.ac.nz
Hi, I'm Chucky. Wanna
play?
Message no. 67
From: Stephen Delear <c715591@******.MISSOURI.EDU>
Subject: Re: Special Forces campaign help
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 00:59:27 -0600
At 02:23 PM 98-03-27 +1200, you wrote:
> Quoth John Penta (0946 21-3-98):
>

>The smartlink might have been an exaggeration, all right. But then
>again - given another advance in miniaturisation, who wants to say a
>projected-point-of-impact sight isn't possible? And I imagine the
>pull-down menus are operated by eye-movement trackers and/or voice
>command. Tom Clancy's primer Armoured Warfare explains it more in
>depth.

God I hope it isn't an eye-movement tracker. I've worked with camera that
had the auto-focus point eye selected. You loose all awarness of anything
else in the frame while you try to fix the point. Can glance around to
look for a telephone pole coming out of someone elses head with out
changing you point. Oh and once that happens forget getting it back,
you'll naturally glance at the point when you press the shutter button to
make sure it dosn't light up. Finally got so annoyed that I turned the
thing off for everything but spot news events. Of course it dosn't help if
you have someone else playing with your equipment fucking up your
calibration. One year I worked with a photog who would always play with my
camera when I wasn't around had to start holding it odd ways so that it
would recognize my eye. If he hadn't fessed up the last day of the
semester I was ready to junk the camera (and those things arn't cheap).
We'll anyway you get my point on how much of a pain in the ass eye select
can be.

SteveD
>
>(Incidentally: your father helped design the system, had access to
>classified details, and he gets the stats out of a computer-game manual?
>Freaky.)
>
> Danyel Woods
> 9604801@********.ac.nz
> Hi, I'm Chucky. Wanna
>play?
>
Stephen Delear
University of Missouri-Columbia
Check out my Photo Message Board at http://www.missouri.edu/~c715591
"Sometimes I do get to places just when God's ready to have somebody click
the shutter" Ansel Adams

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Special Forces campaign help, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!