Equipment Deployments

To comments by OO and HKR:

1) Yes, I'm assuming 75 implies 2175. It might be incorrect, but I get the
impression Gauss is more complicated than normal caseless solid propellant or
binary propellant systems and therefore is a more recent development ergo a
later deployment date (than 2158 if we look
at the SG-58) makes sense. Similarly, I look at the plasma weapons
used by the UN as progressive outgrowths of the early plasma guns (AT weapons)
and a recent item as well (even higher tech than the gauss rifles). So 70's
and 80's deployment dates seemed sensible. Yes, this is connecting the dots in
only one of many possible ways, but it seemed to hang together.

2) OO said that the m/95 version of the Carl G is very similar to the
origianl m/48. But it is more advanced (lighter weight manufacture).
Not all advancements show up in terms of FP/IMP/range/etc. And hasn't
the ammo evolved significantly over that period? (Which might be more
to the point in a comparison involving RR/SMAWs?)

3) A twenty year or even twenty five year service life in the future
seems reasonable. Hence the SG-58 still going strong in 2183.
Although saying the M-16 was released in the 1960s and is still
around today, although true is slightly misleading: The C7 or M16A2
(or A3?) of today is a noticeably modified version of the original M-
16 that went to Vietnam. It is recongizable in many ways, but is different in
quite a few others.

4) None of these points really speak directly to my question - which
was how long it takes to deploy a weapons system in the GZGverse? Does
NACArmsInc just churn up the nanobots and ship out loads of
10,000 L7s at a time, able to re-equip the entire NAC military in a
matter of a month or two? Or does it take 5-10 years to deploy the
weapons to the entire force? Or longer? And what affects it? Does the NAC
suffer from being larger? Is the UN or OUDF (for example) faster in deployment
due to size?

5) Unrelated: Chris, nice work on your web page. Look forward to sending you
some more sov stuff in a bit. It's a nice clean look and I was pretty happy
the look. And any typos I'll take ownership of as

> TomB wrote:

> 1) Yes, I'm assuming 75 implies 2175. It might be incorrect,

Bingo. Yes, the Gauss rifle *may* be more technologically advanced (which may
or may not equate to "more modern" or "more effective") than the
caseless-round rifles... but considering that the only thing which stops
us from making effective Gauss rifles *today* is the lack of a compact enough
powerpack whereas there are a wide bunch of other problems with the caseless
rounds (and that the advances in electronics currently go much,

much faster than the advances in propellant chemistry and have done so for
the past half-century at least), the "75" could just as easily refer to
*20*75 as to 2175. If, as I said, it refers to a year at all - which is
by no means certain. IMO, you're connecting dots while only seeing less than
one-tenth of the dots which are actually out there... you might get a
correct picture if you're very lucky, but then again you might be unlucky.

> 2) OO said that the m/95 version of the Carl G is very similar to the

Exactly.

> And hasn't the ammo evolved significantly over that period?

Completely irrelevant for the CG, because you can fire any CG RCL ammo type
(even the very latest one) from any CG RCL (even the very first
production-run rifle ever built) - and they'll behave almost
identically. (The only difference being that the older, heavier weapons are
inherently
slightly more accurate - but that difference is too small to show up in
SG terms.)

Regards,