Hi-Tech Anti-Tank Weapons (was re: sniper weapons for SGII)

2 posts ยท Jun 29 1998 to Jun 29 1998

From: Jerry Han <jhan@w...>

Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 16:34:50 -0400

Subject: Hi-Tech Anti-Tank Weapons (was re: sniper weapons for SGII)

> Thomas Barclay wrote:

Tom brings up a good point. While forseeing advancements in armour in terms of
mobility, protection and firepower, we must also remember that these
advancements do not proceed in isolation. Grav Drives on tanks could mean the
development of 'Bounce Infantry' a la Renegade Legion; where height above
terrain is not a defence against the fusion grenade against the turret ring.
The ability to manipulate gravity for propulsion implies the ability to
manipulate gravity as some sort of weapon; if nothing else, some sort of
glorified mine. (To take a page from David Weber; a mine that enhances the
efficiency of a propulsion gravity field in a localized area of the field.
Yeow.) Or why not shoulder capable KE weapons, using gravity as the
accelerating field?

> Either that or follow the guerilla plan - contaminated

Support systems always the most vulnerable.

> It might just be that a

But certainly vulnerable to methods developed in their time frame.

J.

From: Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@s...>

Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 17:08:47 -0500

Subject: Re: Hi-Tech Anti-Tank Weapons (was re: sniper weapons for SGII)

Jerry spake thusly upon matters weighty:

> Tom brings up a good point. While forseeing advancements in armour in

> terms of mobility, protection and firepower, we must also remember

True, I did make the assumption that 300 years isn't enough to give man
portable grav equipment or we'd have traveller style grav belts on our PA
allowing them to move 200kph and carry grav stabilized fusion guys capable of
killing APCs.

The ability to manipulate gravity for
> propulsion implies the ability to manipulate gravity as some sort of

Like a push-pull? Enhance the gravity in the nose and tail, reduce
the gravity in the middle - tear the vehicle apart with gravitic
stresses? Yeow indeed.

> But certainly vulnerable to methods developed in their time frame.

I think the point (if you will) was about whether infantry without modern
combat gear (second line or poorly supplied) could take on armour. The answer
is "it depends on your TL and your armour." I believe at some point, armour
may become unassailable (just as I personally believe aircraft action drills
executed by rifleman are
just to make the rifleman feel good and maybe to scare the pilots -
not to actually damage air vehicles) to poorly equipped infantry. Of course,
if your setting allows cheap ass grav mines.... well that's another situation.

Tom.