Same chassis and the same mechanical spares but not necessarily the armour.
Particularly now as modular armour seems to the coming
thing - but I quite agree, an SPG has no need of serious levels of
armour unless it is an assault gun and they have rather gone out of favour
since WW II though apparently the Israelis were using M109s in that role in
Lebanon as they could reach up and hit targets way beyond the elevation of a
tank gun and their big HE round would clear an entire floor. Horribly
vulnerable though for FIBUA
- but then everything is. Incidentally is there a place for an AFV in
FISH? The Germans certainly thought so and the Russians too though they just
sent tanks in without bu**ering about with a specialist design.
Weight is a very telling argument. Are modern MBTs too big?
Oddly there was an SPG conversion for old tank chassis touted for a while,
replace the turret with a bigger, boxier turret with an artillery piece
(a
Royal Ordnance 155mm I think). I remember thinking your point about it -
the chassis is armoured which is just excess weight for an SPG and seemingly
everyone else thought the same as no one bought it!
> Michael Blair wrote:
> Same chassis and the same mechanical spares but not
Like I wrote in the previous post, modular MBT armour results in a *very*
heavy vehicle. With integrated armour the armour carries its own weight as
well as most of the weight of the vehicle's turret etc.; with modular armour
the unarmoured chassis has to provide all of the structural integrity to carry
both the heavy armour *and* everything else.
> but I quite agree, an SPG has no need of serious levels of armour
Out of favour? The Stryker MGS is essentially a lightly-armoured assault
gun...
> Incidentally is there a place for an AFV in FISH?
Not that much. When you drive your AFVs into houses, they tend to drop down
into the cellar and get stuck :-p
(FISH = Fighting In Someone's House; FIBUA = Fighting In Built-Up Areas.
Last I saw these terms defined terms they weren't entirely identical -
the main difference is that FIBUA also includes fighting *between* houses
rather than just *inside* them <g>)
> Weight is a very telling argument. Are modern MBTs too big?
Depends entirely on what you want them to do. If you want to transport
them, or drive them over non-reinforced road bridges, then at least the
western types are awkwardly big; if you want them to survive being shot at by
one another it is more like the eastern types being a bit too small
:-/
> Oddly there was an SPG conversion for old tank chassis touted for a
Not just weight IIRC. If you're thinking of the same project I am the main
problem was that the tank chassis were pretty much worn out, and would've
cost rather more money to operate than new-built hulls would.
Regards,
> At 12:58 AM +0200 7/14/08, Oerjan Ariander wrote:
There are of course problems. Bolt on armor can be upgraded. ARmor that's a
part of the unit structure cannot be easily upgraded and has to in essence be
remanufactured from ground up. The structural integrity is interesting. A unit
structure of RHA was not as often as a strong unit as say cast and rolled
units bolted or welded to an extant subframe from what I've seen of WWII
vehicle designs. Of course, when you look at modern armors, they're rarely RHA
and are very likely a large and broad range of ceramics, spaces and armor
plates plus other fancy things.
> Out of favour? The Stryker MGS is essentially a
I would technically call it an Armored Car since it has a turreted gun in the
near tank range (lighter side now). It's not unlike the Panhard with the long
50mm or the AEC or Coventry ACs when equipped with a 6 pounder or 75mm.
> Depends entirely on what you want them to do. If you want to transport
BMD's are cozy! :-D
> Not just weight IIRC. If you're thinking of the same project I am the
There's a rather interesting thread a while back over on Tank net about the
Chieftan Assault Gun proposal that was done. Nothing more than a mockup, but
the proposed armament was astonishing. A 110mm or 120mm in the 1970s. Here's
the thread...
http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=24864&hl=centurion
> Ryan Gill wrote:
That looks disturbingly like something out of WH40K.
I never got the point of assault guns. If a guns main purpose is to fire at
rapidly moving targets then this is possibly the worst ever design.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lGda
y all,
Assault guns came about because;
1) Cost - far cheaper than a tank.
2) Manufacture - quicker and easier to build that a turret and no fiddly
turret rings to have to mill.
3) Gun Size - you can mount a far bigger gun on the same chassis (see
below)
4) Reuse of old hulls - an old tank that is obsolete can make an
effective Assault gun. Take the German Panzer II from WWII. Obsolete by 1940
being only able to mounted a 20mm gun, by 1944 it is being remade into the
Hertzer assault gun mounting a pretty good 75mm. A similar story with the
Panzer III and IV.
They are also smaller than a tank have better frontal armour for the same
weight (leaving out the Jagtiger).
Gotta remember that the gun can still swivel but no where near as much as a
tank.
Tony.
> Adrian1 wrote:
> At 2:08 PM +1000 7/14/08, Tony Wilkinson wrote:
Actually the Panzer II's were remade into the Luchs, the Marder II, Wespe and
a number of other SPs for howitzers. The Hetzer was a remake of the Czech 38t
chassis.
> They are also smaller than a tank have better
Only 60mm at a deep slope. Their main benefit was their size. They are bloody
cramped for their 4 man crew(I got to ride on and crawl around in the VMMV
hetzer). Worse when fully stowed. The commander has his own hatch and the
loader sits off to the left of the gun with a hatch he shares with the driver
and gunner. Given the ammo stowage arrangements, if it takes a hit and starts
to burn, the chances for the gunner and driver getting out are slim. The
Commander has as I said, his own hatch and he sits in this nice little cubby
directly behind the main gun and it's recoil shield with the engine just on
his left.
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 11:08 PM, Tony Wilkinson <twilko@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:
> They are also smaller than a tank have better frontal armour for the
I have a book from the late 80s/early 90s by Kenneth Macksey titled
_Tank Versus Tank_. He mentions a prototype "advanced" assault gun,
named the "Goliath". It was basically a small tank chassis with a gun
mounted into it/on top of it. The gun would descend for loading, then
pop up for firing. The idea was to remove the need for a turret (the gun could
rotate), while keeping the entire vehicle hull down, and thus the crew
reasonably safe. When hull down was not possible, it still presented a smaller
target than a tank.
Nothing seems to have come of it. I suspect there were technical issues with
accuracy, particularly if the gun had to pop up and down a lot (which would
hurt accuracy as well as (probably even more importantly) time to fire. The
rate of fire would be rotten compared to a tank if the gun had to rotate
forward, descend, and then rotate to an angle every time the weapon fired at a
target off to the left or right. I imagine it would be fairly cramped, too,
seeing as how you'd have to fit a crew of three into the chassis part of the
vehicle, along with engine, fuel and ammunition.
It was an interesting idea, but I suspect it would never even be considered
today. Weapon accuracy makes the cannon too vulnerable when it's raised to
fire.
I always wanted a model of one, though.
> Adrian1 wrote:
> I never got the point of assault guns. If a guns main purpose is to
Since the assault guns' main purpose was to destroy infantry strong points
(which are fairly unlikely to move at all, much less rapidly), any
difficulties in engaging rapidly moving targets did not cause any major
problems for the designs. Against tanks, the assault guns and fixed-gun
tank destroyers generally preferred to fire from ambush positions (where
you can wait for the target to move into your sights) - and even when
they didn't, the enemy tanks lacked effective gun stabilization and therefore
had to stop to return fire.
When effective gun stabilization was introduced, allowing tanks to fire
accurately on the move, the usefulness of hull-mounted anti-tank guns
pretty much evaporated. (The S-tank struggled on for several decades,
but I'm very grateful that we never had to send one into actual combat.)
Hull-mounted guns still work well against infantry strong points and
other
fixed targets though - ie., the original assault gun mission.
Regards,
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOer
jan,
You make some good points all around.
I think one thing to keep in mind with modular vehicles is that future
technology might balance out the weight issues. I also do not think that
modular can mean many different things. There are varying degrees of
modularity. In the realm if sci-fi, this could mean a lot of things and
still be mostly hard science fiction.
You comment on weight and transport is one of the most compelling
points. In a sci-fi setting where we are transporting vehicles across
the stars, ever ounce is going to count unless your universe has reduced space
travel to its most casual level, but mosto f the GZG settings I see talked
about, do not. In these settings, lighter, more compact vehicles would be the
norm in colonial forces. Something along the lines of the Stryker make much
more sense as a colonial weapons platform.
A vehicle like this uses a wheeled chassis making it easier to maintain on
backwater worlds. I can potentially pack big guns in a small package. The
common components between it and the other vehicles in its family aid in
maintenance and supply.
Even taking into account futuristic materials, MBTs are likely going to be
used sparingly in a colonial space setting and likely reserved for homeworld
and major colony forces where they can be produced on site.
You may have them available for trans-stellar transport, but this would
be used sparingly as effective MBTs are likely to still pose a supply issue
even if they are fuelled by amazing fusion bottles with operational lives of a
thousand years or whatever.
-Eli
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Oerjan Ariander <orjan.ariander1@comhem.se>
> Michael Blair wrote:
> them, or drive them over non-reinforced road bridges, then at least
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lEve
n taking into account futuristic materials, MBTs are likely going to be used
sparingly in a colonial space setting and likely reserved for homeworld and
major colony forces where they can be produced on site.
You may have them available for trans-stellar transport, but this would
be used sparingly as effective MBTs are likely to still pose a supply issue
even if they are fuelled by amazing fusion bottles with operational lives of a
thousand years or whatever.
-Eli
Spot on................)
Don
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lPow
er projection is ALWAYS shaped by shipping, be it foot, rail or watercraft.
The US kept making Shermans because "they fit" in the transports.
Michael Brown mwsaber6@msn
From: Don M
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 9:01 AM
To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [GZG] Subject: Re: What are the pitfalls of standardised
forces?
Even taking into account futuristic materials, MBTs are likely going to be
used sparingly in a colonial space setting and likely reserved for homeworld
and major colony forces where they can be produced on site.
You may have them available for trans-stellar transport, but this would
be used sparingly as effective MBTs are likely to still pose a supply issue
even if they are fuelled by amazing fusion bottles with operational lives of a
thousand years or whatever.
-Eli
Spot on................)
Don
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_19214_1216048585_2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_19214_1216048585_2--
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOf
course this opens the sci-fi universe open for mercenary armor like
Hammer's Slammers where they sell the premium service of advanced armor to
those willing or desperate enough to purchase their services.
-Eli
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Don M" <dmaddox1@hot.rr.com>
Even taking into account futuristic materials, MBTs are likely going to be
used sparingly in a colonial space setting and likely reserved for homeworld
and major colony forces where they can be produced on site.
You may have them available for trans-stellar transport, but this would
be used sparingly as effective MBTs are likely to still pose a supply issue
even if they are fuelled by amazing fusion bottles with operational lives of a
thousand years or whatever.
-Eli
Spot on................)
Don
> emu2020@comcast.net wrote:
> technology might balance out the weight issues. I also do not think
> of modularity. In the realm if sci-fi, this could mean a lot of things
> and still be mostly hard science fiction.
> the lines of the Stryker make much more sense as a colonial weapons
I know little if anything about mechanics but aren't hovercraft/GEVs
less complicated than wheeled tracked vehicles. WIth no need to
replace wheels/tracks or broken suspension, etc.
> A vehicle like this uses a wheeled chassis making it easier to
> in its family aid in maintenance and supply.
> with operational lives of a thousand years or whatever.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lAdr
> ian1 wrote:
Maybe, maybe not. Okay, no wheels, tracks or suspension (or is there?),
BUT... you still need some kind of supports for when the thing is shut down,
and like helos, it could help if a vehicle can be pushed around by
hand (assuming it's light enough for that), which means wheels of some
sort, even if unpowered -- in fact, a lot of helicopter design features
could be relevant. Shafting from engine(s) to fans, for instance,
including possible multiply-redundant arrangements to allow for engine
failure and/or combat damage.
The point is that, depending on the technology and PSB you assume, a GEV
AFV could be lighter and simpler than conventional tracks or wheeled vehicles,
or equally complex, just in a different way, or even more complicated, but
that is counterbalanced by the increase in mobility
that it gives and the resulting tactical applications --or not. You pays
your money and takes your choice -- or the battle you are to fight does.
Phil
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOf
course this opens the sci-fi universe open for mercenary armor like
Hammer's Slammers where they sell the premium service of advanced armor to
those willing or desperate enough to purchase their services.
-Eli
I know I've seen that somewhere before, lol....)
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_13977_1216061906_2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_13977_1216061906_2--
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
If I recall in Slammers, the GEV tanks and gun cars all have a number of fans
that run well below their 100% so that if they lose one or two, they can make
up the loss on the other fans. They do mention the cost of GEV maintenance
being better than most vehicles because power is supplied directly to the fans
themselves instead of transferring power from engine down drive train to
wheels. This being said, the same would apply when you start using electric
drive systems for wheeled or even tracked vehicles.
In many of the conceptual electric designs, each wheel is given its own motor
and thus you only need to transfer electrical power to the motor, not
mechanical power. This still requires power leads but a length of
conduit an a modular motor/drive at the wheel may still be easier than
pulling a driveshaft, tranny and diferential.
-Eli
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Phillip Atcliffe <atcliffe@ntlworld.com>
> Adrian1 wrote:
You comment on weight and transport is one of the most compelling
points. In a sci-fi setting where we are transporting vehicles across
the stars, ever ounce is going to count unless your universe has reduced space
travel to its most casual level, but most of the GZG settings I see talked
about, do not. In these settings, lighter, more compact vehicles would be the
norm in colonial forces. Something along the lines of the Stryker make much
more sense as a colonial weapons platform.
I know little if anything about mechanics but aren't hovercraft/GEVs
less complicated than wheeled tracked vehicles, with no need to replace
wheels/tracks or broken suspension, etc.
Maybe, maybe not. Okay, no wheels, tracks or suspension (or is there?), BUT...
you still need some kind of supports for when the thing is shut down, and like
helos, it could help if a vehicle can be pushed around by hand (assuming it's
light enough for that), which means wheels of some
sort, even if unpowered -- in fact, a lot of helicopter design features
could be relevant. Shafting from engine(s) to fans, for instance,
including possible multiply-redundant arrangements to allow for engine
failure and/or combat damage.
The point is that, depending on the technology and PSB you assume, a GEV AFV
could be lighter and simpler than conventional tracks or wheeled vehicles, or
equally complex, just in a different way, or even more complicated, but that
is counterbalanced by the increase in mobility
that it gives and the resulting tactical applications --or not. You pays
your money and takes your choice -- or the battle you are to fight does.
Phil
> At 5:03 PM +0100 7/14/08, Adrian1 wrote:
Bearings are bearings. It's FAR easier to swap out a road wheel and bearing
than say a high speed bearing. Presumably GRAV uses some high energy
components that don't wear, but they'll still have an MBTF of some non
infinite number. Ever see a high voltage transformer that
failed NOT do so spectacularly? 8-o
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lYou
r PSB could allow for some sort of contra-magnetic bearing system where
the large bearing is a magnetic field instead of a mechanical bearing. I get
your point though, and there is always going to be something to replace. If
not a bearing, then a magnetic coupler for the mag bearings.
There is always going to be some component to break.
-Eli
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
> At 5:03 PM +0100 7/14/08, Adrian1 wrote:
> At 5:03 PM +0100 7/14/08, Adrian1 wrote:
Seeing as Grav tech is all PSB handwaving anyway, we can make them
work any way we want! :-)
My take on them (which I suppose you can consider as at least
semi-official for the GZG-verse) is that the "early" grav systems
will be maintenance-intensive, probably with lift field generating
equipment that requires regular tuning, alignment or whatever, while
the later high-tech grav will be more a case of solid state modules
that need little support unless/until they actually fail, when you
just pull the module and slot in a new one.... that's if you HAVE a
new one to hand of course.... ;-)
Jon (GZG)
> --
> Your PSB could allow for some sort of contra-magnetic bearing system
...and it'll always be the one component your engineering stores has
just used the last one of.... ;-)
Jon (GZG)
> -Eli
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> _______________________________________________
> Adrian1 wrote:
> I know little if anything about mechanics but aren't hovercraft/GEVs
If you're talking about hovercraft: As long as you only move across very
smooth terrain that doesn't tear at the plenum chamber walls, maybe.
Hovercraft also drink far more fuel than similarly-protected wheeled or
tracked vehicles capable of carrying the same payload.
If you're talking about GEVs: While large parts of the SF community use the
term "GEV" to mean "hovercraft", "Ground Effect Vehicle" is actually an
abbreviation of "Wing In Ground Effect vehicle" (WIGE) - ie. something
more like an aircraft than a ground vehicle. I'd be very surprised if WIGEs
required less maintenance than wheeled or tracked vehicles :-/
Eli: *Light* hovercraft are less likely to trigger pressure mines than other
types of ground vehicles are, but they are just as vulnerable to
mines with tilt-rod, magnetic etc fuses. However, if you put armour on a
hovercraft its ground pressure rises quite rapidly, so by the time you've
put MBT-level armour on it it'll be about as likely to trigger a
pressure mine as a light APC is. (And it won't be able to move over water or
other
soft surfaces either - a heavy hovercraft will sink...)
Regards,
> Adrian1 wrote:
IIRC the Slammers' Combat Cars could cross open water, but the tanks would
sink.
Jon (GZG)
> Regards,
> Oerjan Ariander wrote:
> other types of ground vehicles are, but they are just as vulnerable to
> mines with tilt-rod, magnetic etc fuses. However, if you put armour on
Where doe the Russian Zubr come in?
What would a DS2 Zubr look like?
While it acts in many ways like a hovercraft, is it ship?
Could I PLEASE have one as a land GEV O:-)
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lYou
would be correct, Jon. I think it had to do with the amount of disturbance
exerting that much weight in a small space caused on the water. Basicly, they
got swamped.
-Eli
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com>
> >Adrian1 wrote:
> >>less complicated than wheeled tracked vehicles. WIth no need to
something more
> >like an aircraft than a ground vehicle. I'd be very surprised if
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI
would build that monster as a naval vessel.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Adrian1 <al.ll@tiscali.co.uk>
> Oerjan Ariander wrote:
> Adrian1 wrote:
> >Eli: *Light* hovercraft are less likely to trigger pressure mines
As a lightly-armoured ship. A Zubr is 56 meters long, 22 meters wide,
about as tall, masses 535 tons when fully loaded, has a crew of 27 men (not
counting any of the transported troops, of course)... and is only armoured
against shell fragments and light projectiles (read: heavy machineguns and
smaller).
> What would a DS2 Zubr look like?
It would be a multi-module vehicle big enough to dwarf even a MkVI
OGRE...
but its strongest armour would be level/1. (In SG2 it would have level/2
armour, but if you build it in scale with your other SG2 vehicles it would
cover your entire gaming table :-/ )
> While it acts in many ways like a hovercraft, is it ship?
It is a hovercraft. A very, *very* big hover craft with paper-thin
armour.
> Could I PLEASE have one as a land GEV O:-)
No, you can't. You could have a Caspian Sea Monster as a GEV though, since
unlike the Zubr the Caspian Sea Monster actually *is* a GEV :-/
Regards,
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI
was talking about the mammoth hovercraft that we use today. I realise there is
not absolute proof against damage in war and countermeasures and attack
mothods dance a whirly gig of a dance around one another.
I would say that you are likely to see all sorts of wacky anti-vehicle
charges coming about. One that works against anything is really the
sonic-triggerered, projected penetrating mines. As long as your vehicle
makes noise, you can have a mine detect it. And if it's projecting its damage,
your drive system doesn't matter much.
Another option is to reduce your mines to simply being sensor elements
for some remotely-positioned weapon with a good range. You could set up
a box of ATGMs linked to sensor mines that "call in" shots from the launcher
when they are triggered. The poor schmucks in the vehicles don't even no
they've triggered anything until their prozximity alert is anouncing an
incoming missile or missiles.
Sooooo many toys,
Eli
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Oerjan Ariander <orjan.ariander1@comhem.se>
> Adrian1 wrote:
> required less maintenance than wheeled or tracked vehicles :-/
> other types of ground vehicles are, but they are just as vulnerable to
> mines with tilt-rod, magnetic etc fuses. However, if you put armour on
> Oerjan Ariander wrote:
It would come into its own when someone discovers how to make force fields
then.
> What would a DS2 Zubr look like?
That would make an interesting game - drop troops land on the surface of
a Zubr with instructions to capture it.
> While it acts in many ways like a hovercraft, is it ship?
Could I PLEASE have one as a land GEV O:-)
> No, you can't. You could have a Caspian Sea Monster as a GEV though,
Unfortunately that thing is a lousy design for a combat vehicle. Very
difficult to armour and the engines are VERY vulnerable. It would make a VERY
scary naval fast attack craft though. It could carry the armament of a small
warship and travel at the speed of a fast helicopter.
The website I'm looking at suggests that its main problem (horizontal
instability) is because its too SMALL. The US is developing one called the
Pelican that is twice the size, three times the tonnage.(apparently 17 MBTs
and several 100 men) with a range of 10,000 miles.
http://davidszondy.com/future/Flight/GEV.htm
I wonder how the atlantic weather effects them.
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> My take on them (which I suppose you can consider as at least
If you want to make Grav vehicles a little less than "absolutely the best
thing out there", you could declare that the grav's signature (PSB the cause
of that signature) makes them easier to spot, so
stealth and/or ECM is a little less effective on them. You either have
to build in better counter-measures, or they are a little easier to
see/hit than similarly sized wheeled or tracked vehicles.