01-12-2018, 10:13 AM | #191 |
Wielder of Smart Pants
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
|
Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE
Bicycles don't need grass or gas. They do need that other thing, but troops need that anyway in order to stand upright.
|
01-12-2018, 10:36 AM | #192 |
Hero of Democracy
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: far from the ocean
|
Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE
Bicycles are notable for needing roads, and slowing down when going up hill, especially when heavily loaded with gear.
On the other hand, they're going to be much easier to find than horses, don't cost much when you're not using them, and AtE often has lots and lots of roads. Bicycle troops certainly have a role in an AtE setting. I'm not sure that I'd use them to replace horse troops.
__________________
Be helpful, not pedantic Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog Check out the PbP forum! If you don't see a game you'd like, ask me about making one! |
01-12-2018, 11:00 AM | #193 | ||
Wielder of Smart Pants
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
|
Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE
Quote:
Quote:
Also Turbo Kid is fun as hell. Last edited by sir_pudding; 01-12-2018 at 03:32 PM. |
||
01-12-2018, 12:19 PM | #194 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE
Granted, but the question wasn't what realistically happens, the question was what GURPS rules say happens. However, in terms of realism the actual accuracy doesn't seem too bad, the real issue is that infantry can remain in disarray for far longer than the GURPS rules for surprise allow.
|
01-12-2018, 02:09 PM | #195 | |
Wielder of Smart Pants
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
|
Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE
Quote:
|
|
01-12-2018, 03:20 PM | #196 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, TX
|
Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE
Quote:
Even heavy, three-speed off-road bikes can probably sustain 6-8 mph cross-country for 3-4 hours/day, so they're strategically faster than horses. An active cyclist might consume more calories than an infantryman (maybe), but it's still less than a horse, so your logistics tail is lighter. Bicycles don't need to be trained to not spook at the sound of gunfire, and you can train up a cyclist faster than you can teach a man to ride and a horse to be ridden. You have to manufacture bicycles (though steel or wood 3-speed off-road bikes are TL5, especially if you use solid tire rims), but you have to grow horses, so I'd consider that a wash. On the attack, horse dragoons have to detach 15-25% of their number just to hold the horses, but you can drop off a bike without worrying about it wandering off someplace. You obviously can't replace heavy cavalry with bicycles, and probably not light cavalry that fires on the move from the mount*. So if that's something your AtE setting has, bikes won't replace them. But late TL5/TL6 style horse cavalry that are really dragoons should be replaced by bicycles if you can. * It seem like tandem bikes could be used to let half your force move and shoot. Alternately, bike rickshaws could work like fairly compact chariots. I'm not sure that tandem bikes and rickshaws are better than light cavalry at that point, though.
__________________
Read my GURPS blog: http://noschoolgrognard.blogspot.com |
|
01-12-2018, 03:39 PM | #197 |
Wielder of Smart Pants
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
|
Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE
The Dark Claw test apparently managed between 10-20 mph. Of course those were, I think, chrome-moly frames with modern gears and everything.
|
01-12-2018, 03:51 PM | #198 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE
Wikipedia to the rescue. Based on how they were used historically, an AtE setting where motorized transport is low availability (quite possible due to fuel logistics) would find bicycles quite useful and they do seem to largely supplant horse troops.
|
01-13-2018, 02:49 PM | #199 | |
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: The Land of Enchantment
|
Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE
Quote:
Five thousand years of empirical evidence shows no signs that the vast majority of humanity have much trouble killing off other swaths of humanity. The 'average guy' is not psychologically incapable of killing. Grossman's methodology was horrible, and he has many detractors, who write things like "COL Dave Grossman: How Wrong Is He?" The British military- who have been doing their own studies on the subject for over a century- think he's a buffoon. It's hard to trust a psychological source that has never been peer-reviewed, and who clearly misrepresented or misinterpreted at least some of his data. Grossman has only published mass-market books and in law enforcement journals, not actual peer-reviewed journals or in fact any sort of psychological journal. It's also hard to trust a source that has made an entire career out of this tripe, and tried to start a psychological discipline called "killology", as well as a Killology Research Group with only a single member- Dave Grossman. Most soldiers "just fire in the direction of the enemy" in modern warfare because that's a valid tactic, known as suppressive fire, and not because they lack the will to kill. Also, before it is brought up (because it always is), freezing is not being psychologically incapable of killing. Being terrified beyond the ability to function is not being psychologically incapable of killing. Not quite being able to believe that the guy from the alley is actually about to shoot you is not being psychologically incapable of defending yourself. Getting PTSD afterwards is not being psychologically incapable of killing. Not wanting to kill is not being psychologically incapable of killing. And so on.
__________________
I'd need to get a grant and go shoot a thousand goats to figure it out. Last edited by acrosome; 01-13-2018 at 02:58 PM. |
|
01-13-2018, 04:58 PM | #200 |
Untagged
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Forest Grove, Beaverton, Oregon
|
Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE
It's a rather silly hypothesis to begin with. If I want someone over there dead, I'm not going to fire a single bullet no matter how good of a shot I think I am.
My accuracy will likely go down more, because I'm at least as caring about not getting shot myself. And I am mostly pacifist with zero military skill or education.
__________________
Beware, poor communication skills. No offense intended. If offended, it just means that I failed my writing skill check. |
|
|