From: Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@s...>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 19:43:23 -0500
Subject: grav some more
Adrian said: I think the answer to that one is going to be economics. A small tactical vehicle (say, a recce afv or a "jeep" or a tank) will cost a lot less than a vehicle designed to drop a platoon, or a company, into battle. If your force is made up of just a few vastly capable but enormously expensive multi-purpose vehicles, then losing just ONE is a *big deal*. And the roles they have to undertake are quite different. [Tomb] That depends. If I can develop an APC that can drop from orbit, carry a decent amount of armour, mount a GMS capable of killing a tank and a fusion gun capable of making infantry very nervous, I haven't got a tank, a troop chopper, or an APC, I've got a little bit of it all. But losing one is still only losing one combat vehicle and one squad of guys. Expensive, but not terribly moreso than losing any individual specialized unit. Direct fire support in a tactical environment calls for one set of features. Dropping a platoon from orbit calls for different features. Combining the two gives you one helluva expensive fire support vehicle. Be *much* less expensive, I imagine, to have large-ish transport-type vehicles to get the fighting stuff to the surface, and then smaller stuff for tactical use ON the surface. [Tomb] Except for two things: 1) Large ship coming down - large target. (This is the all the eggs in one basket syndrome) 2) Later mobility. After landing, Traveller grav-model vehicles can fly around like slicks or snakes. So the infantry has a much higher mobility level and redeployment capability. Without having to cluster back into a transport. Maybe your APCs and tanks can get to orbit if they need to in an emergency, but will there be enough for everyone on the ground? [Tomb] In traveller model this is SoP. Think of the "room for everyone" issue as being the same as moving a formation by helicopter today. Same issue exists. If you drop your APCs and Tanks from orbit, assuming that the air defenses are not going to shoot them all down, then you need pretty capable vehicles, [Tomb] Or decoy and EW technology is good. The fleet covers me with heavy EW, uses lightspeed weapons to destroy anyone that goes active to get a fire control solution on my dropping tanks, and I drop piles of cheap disposable decoys to draw fire thus reducing my casualty rates. Hence the tank, while capable, is not outrageously so. and certainly need really well trained crews. [Tomb] First, any high tech professional force will be well trained. Second, AIs can do a lot of this better than humans (definitely by 218x). Your tank drivers would have to be trained equivalent to our attack helocopter or fighter pilots - unless there are dramatic increases in training systems and methods AND smart systems onboard to make the vehicles easier to pilot (which is probable [Tomb] Exactly. I picture a grav tank driver as a competent professional who has a lot of expert-system backup. And isn't quite as elite as a fighter or chopper pilot. He flies in a more robust platform (better able to take hits, simpler propulsion system perhaps even). - but the silliest extension of this idea is seen in that show "Space Above and Beyond" where all the members of an elite infantry unit were also all trained fighter pilots... or maybe it was all the pilots in a squadron also happened to be elite infantry...). [Tomb] Though I thought Vanson was cute, I have to say that the concept of that show was utterly mentally vacant. It lived up to its name (Space Abort and Begone). [Tomb} Free extra thought: Jon, comparing grav costs in DS2 vs tracked isn't meaningful in this discussion. Why? GZG grav can't fly. It is just glorified AC. If you had flying grav, you can imagine costing all tanks as either VTOL or Aerospace frames, only with a better ability to carry armour. So they'd be darned expensive.