Gaming Ballistic - GURPS Content Posts

[DanHoward]

The designation is related to function, not equipment. If you put a naked man with a spear and shield into a phalanx formation he is classed as heavy infantry. If you assign a mounted knight in full plate to skirmishing duties then he is light cavalry.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

The designation is related to function, not equipment. If you put a naked man with a spear and shield into a phalanx formation he is classed as heavy infantry. If you assign a mounted knight in full plate to skirmishing duties then he is light cavalry.

Yes, that's my point. Although it's hard to find a function for MBTs that gets them to be light armor. I suppose US Cavalry units might qualify.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Then you have light infantry in heavy armor, which seems odd.

I think "heavy armor" is armor worn by heavy infantry, shock troops, and obviously tanks. "Light armor" is the armor worn by light infantry, skirmish troops and infantry vehicles.

...Infantry vehicles (and actual tanks) don't really wear armor...


If we assume that all proper armor is calibrated for the 'keeps people from impaling my precious organs' standard, there are approximately three categories of defense:
-Unprotected (naked or basic clothing of negligible protective value.)
-Protected (heavy clothing that can save your skin from low-penetration nastiness, perhaps including some cutting attacks or particularly low-powered projectiles.)
-Armored

And the difference between a lighter and heavier loadout of actual armor is primarily a matter of coverage. This may not entirely correspond to your divisions, though...even heavy infantry with big budgets isn't necessarily going to want encumbering leg armor.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Yes, that's my point. Although it's hard to find a function for MBTs that gets them to be light armor. I suppose US Cavalry units might qualify.

...Are you sure that your point is that "heavy armor" can refer to being stark naked?

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

...Infantry vehicles (and actual tanks) don't really wear armor...

No, they are armor (in the case of tanks) and it is meaningful to talk about "heavy" and "light" armored units.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

...Are you sure that your point is that "heavy armor" can refer to being stark naked?

I'm saying that "heavy armor" means a heavy unit equipped with armor. It doesn't have anything to do with the actual weight of the equipment. Knights as shock cavalry are heavy armored troops. MBTs are almost always heavy armor, LAVs are almost always light armor. Light infantry in ballistics vests and inserts or munitions plate are still light armored infantry. It has almost nothing to do with the equipment and it's nearly useless in this discussion.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I'm saying that "heavy armor" means a heavy unit equipped with armor. It doesn't have anything to do with the actual weight of the equipment. Knights as shock cavalry are heavy armored troops. MBTs are almost always heavy armor, LAVs are almost always light armor. Light infantry in ballistics vests and inserts or munitions plate are still light armored infantry. It has almost nothing to do with the equipment and it's nearly useless in this discussion.

I'm not sure I believe this terminology is used at all, but I am sure I don't believe that when people say "heavy armor" they mean 'whatever armor the heavy infantry uses'.

We were, I'm pretty sure, talking about the equipment, not the units that use it.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I'm not sure I believe this terminology is used at all, but I am sure I don't believe that when people say "heavy armor" they mean 'whatever armor the heavy infantry uses'.

When people usually say "heavy armor" they mean units composed primarily of main battle tanks, and that terminology is definitely used. "Heavy Armor Divisions" are real things. "Heavy Armored Calvary" or "Heavy Armored Infantry" are also used for historical formations and again refer to the unit type, not a relative comparison of equipment.

As far as "heavy armor" as meaning something specific across all of history as a certain construction or weight limit or something, I don't think there is, or can be. "Heavy armor" as used by ErhamDJ is basically meaningless. It would have been more useful if he said "those guys in the lower right are wearing brigandine", IMO.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

When people usually say "heavy armor" they mean units composed primarily of main battle tanks, and that terminology is definitely used. "Heavy Armor Divisions" are real things.

That is a long way from the most common usage of those words, in my experience. It's certainly valid and correct, but it's used in particular contexts which, in particular, this discussion isn't.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

"Heavy Armored Calvary" or "Heavy Armored Infantry" are also used for historical formations and again refer to the unit type, not a relative comparison of equipment.

Okay. I have never encountered that usage at all. From your description, I gather that those are basically using "Armored" as an infix modifier for the familiar classifications of "Heavy Cavalry" and "Heavy Infantry". As you all but say, the "Heavy" is not modifying the "Armor" in those constructions.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

As far as "heavy armor" as meaning something specific across all of history as a certain construction or weight limit or something, I don't think there is, or can be. "Heavy armor" as used by ErhamDJ is basically meaningless. It would have been more useful if he said "those guys in the lower right are wearing brigandine", IMO.

Vague, probably. Basically meaningless, not so much.

It might be accurate to say that heavy vs. light armor is commonly used to refer to a division that exists much less in reality than in fiction and gaming, since low-tech 'light' armor is pretty strongly attached to the popular misconception of leather armor. Though in modern armor at least it's somewhat legitimized. We do, after all, have that whole scale of stopping ability for personal ballistic armors.

[DouglasCole]

Dungeon Fantasy is full of entertaining tropes, some used for amusement, some for simplification, and some for the one true purpose of absolute and total mayhem. Alternate Dungeons takes this and attempts to come at you sideways.

I'll be publishing this review one article at a time, but maybe more than one per day as I can find time. So check back!

This particular review is on Sean's Pointless Slaying and Looting . . . and it is good.

[DouglasCole]

This post reviews an essay - Dungeons of Mars, by Phil Masters - on using the Dungeon Fantasy tropes and techniques to enable the planetary romance genre. The article is part retrospective, but the majority of it is dissecting the elements of planetary romance and relating them to the usual care-abouts in a DF game. It appears in this month's Pyramid Magazine: #3/72, and continues my article-by-article review of the issue.