From:	AlSeyMer <AdSM@******.BE>
Subject:	Re: Firearms vs. Military Strategy
Date:	Sun, 31 May 1998 23:52:14 +0200

Fade wrote:
>
> George wrote:
> > In response to the recent sniping issue, I think a lot of people are
> > confusing firearms with Military Strategy especailly when considering
> > Firearms as a skill to enhance the perception of snipers.
> > Firearms is a skill that allosw you to effectively manage a hand weapon,
> > aim it at a target, follow that taget, and then get off a shot. I'm not
> > sure how this would allow someone to deduce effective sniping positions.
> > The skill to do this would be a Military Strategy skill or something similar.
>
> Good point, but I'm not sure military strategy fits, at least not
> perfectly. Small unit tactics can be used against ambuses, though, so
> it is useable in some manner - especially in ambush or surprise
> situations. It's also very useful in arranging an ambush.
>
At least, it can be used to determine the most likely place for an
ambush.

> (edited)

> In R2 there's a line about the difference between firearms and
> gunnery, firearms being the physical side of aiming and firing, while
> gunnery is calculating fire arcs, area of coverage etcetera.
>
I generally consider that with the adequate specialisation, a character
can use his weapon, so he will be able to make the necessary
calculations to ensure a good shot. But, this require a minimum of
training. A character can have a sniper rifle, but he won't necessarily
use it as it should. All is a question of training and background.
Personnaly, i put arcs of coverage, fire arcs, mutual support fire plans
etc under the small unit tactics skill.
As of firearmrs and gunnery, they are not vastly different in the rules,
gunnery mainly representing the capacity to use a "bigger" gun.
Indirect fire is covered in detail in R2, and is a two teams job: one
who operates the weapon, and the other who direct and correct the fire.

> (edited)

> I'd let a character use military theory, stealth, or possibly gunnery
> to guess at likely locations, but to actually spot the sniper it's a
> pure perception test. But the test would logically be easier if the
> character says, 'I think he must be either there, there, there or
> there, so I scan those places' than 'Um.. I scan the horizon, do I
> see anyone?' But as in all things, if the sniper isn't there, there,
> or there, it'll be awfully hard to spot him using the former test.
>
I agree, a sniper's job is first to make his detection difficult, then
to act. If you know where one can be, it can or cannot be helful. For
example, in a flat field with a few elevations, it would be logical for
a sniper to be on the most covered elevation (better spotting range and
protection); but in a typical city, he could be behind any window, on
any roof... I don't think that it's appropriate to authorize any
modifier based on skills to the perception roll: the possibility are
generally simply too vast to consider. However, based upon the
characters'knowledge of the situation, and their skills (mainly the
tactics concentration or its adequate specialisation) they may determine
wether or not a place is a probable ambush site, and more important,
based upon their knowledge of their adversary, wether a sniper action is
probable.

> Hm... those military theory/sniping/etc. rolls could count
> as successes on the perception test, given that more than one success
> is required to spot the sniper. (One success is enough to call in
> mortars with reasonable accuracy, but not enough to actually see the
> sniper... perhaps. Opinions? Suggestions?)
>
There are telltale signs of a sniper presence, for example: refected
light in a zone where no one should be and where there is animal
activity (birds acting distracted, etc). However, you won't be certain
of the sniper's presence. As of now, different system are in
developpement to detect sniper presence. The more promising seems to be
a laser scanning its horizon to detect scopes by reflection.
To respond to sniper presence, the british army is using/considering to
use a sonic detector which visualize the trajectory of the sniper's shot
on a pair of goggles. The more shots are fired from the same spot, the
more the detection is precise.
So, has said earlier, i don't think it's a good idea to give a mod to
the perception test based on skills, but it can be appropriate to give
it if special equipment is in use. Not that special equipment is limited
to what i have said: a good UV sensor can be perfect, especially in a
desolate place where there is only a few warm things, and even less
human size.

> Any army guys out there, what's standard anti-sniper tactics? It'd be
> nice to know, since it will soon crop up in the current campaign.
>
I'm no more army, but i can still answer ;-)
In operation, with unlimited fire engagement rules for defense, the SOP
is first taking cover while shooting all you have in the direction from
where the shot(s) came. Second, you take your time to evaluate the
situation while still trying to force the sniper to keep his/her head
down. The most important questions your character have to answer are:
Who are with me, where are they, is there only one hostile?
Third: based upon your guesses (your character would like to have
certitudes, but he generally won't have time...) you place your heavy
weapon support(s) in a good fire position while still suppressing the
sniper's probable location. Fourth: your heavy weapon(s) take away the
sniper's cover, ans with luck the sniper him/herself. Once the cover is
away, it's "only" a matter maneuvering to eliminate the problem.
Maneuvering in a sniper fild of fire is never a good idea, so your
character would like to have "portable" cover aka smoke grenades.
Usually, you will only see this kind on stuff on the battlefield. In a
city, in time of peace, it's not advisable, as it kind of ruin the
architecture... Usually, when you cannot blast freely the opposition
away, you will try to protect the target a maximum. This can mean that
you have to put peoples around him/her to take the bullet(s).

> (edited)

> Fun with guns.
> --
Yup ;-)
Deadly fun with guns :-)

> Fade
> (edited)

AlSeyMer