Sayeth the Full-Metal Atkinson:
True, but MDCs are almost as good--their ammunition is
compact (an MDC/5 may be a 40-50mm system with high
muzzle velocities) and insensitive (read easy to
handle--not much danger of explosion for a DU slug
with steel bands).
John
[Tomb] MDC burns ammo pretty darn fast relative to conventional weapons.
Yes, but there is still a world of difference between an Intrepid grav tank
and a Rampart. Granted that at TL15 the difference between a tank and a VTOL
are
gone, the GZG-verse is not at TL 15.
[Tomb] I grant you. And I also thought you were talking generically
rather than game system dependent.
> 2) I question your zero logistics PoV. You don't
No, I said fuel. Fuel is by far the most time- and
transport- consuming resource.
[Tomb] Yes, you'd end up with a smaller logistics tail. But you'd still
have one.
> The Apache has been shown as case in point to be
Oddly enough, this number is a peacetime OR rate. In Desert Storm the OR rate
was closer to 90%.
[Tomb] For how long? How sustainable? These numbers are all utterly
contestible, but I've heard about the damage the environment did to the Apache
(which had to fly low). That wasn't good. Plus something that'd get you a
downcheck in peacetime will let you fly in war, even though your performance
may be impaired.
I'll still argue. Specialization is necessary because of how badly a tank is
outclassed when trying to argue with a fighter. Or vice versa. What might be
common would be a preponderance of the "VTOL" style vehicle,
which has some air-to-air capability and some good
tank-hunting capability.
[Tomb] Yep. You'll argue and then your GAO will say "Nice argument but
you still get X bucks. You still have to cover Y planets." And you'll
still be stuck buying multi-role kit unless you are way rich.
Plus in the right tech period, a tank is _not_ outclassed by a fighter.
With a human aboard, a fighter will move finite speeds, once I add a
lightspeed weapon with horizon attack range (some of the Traveller systems) to
my tank and firecontrol to match, your fighter is just plain dead when it
crosses the horizon. And my tank has enough armour to give me some chance of
shrugging off your counterstrike. This is a highly debatable instance and
hinges on the details of the tech available at both ends. Given high enough
tech, the fighter is pointless.
> 5) Expense will limit how many forces you can field.
Grav isn't that expensive--especially when expressed
as a fraction of total vehicle cost.
[Tomb] Sorry, I should have said "in a world where grav isn't to
predominate". I agree with your comments about the GZGverse though you had
indicated you were talking generically rather than specifically about the
GZGverse.
That's not a large enough numerical advantage to make a difference against the
sort of dislocating effects grav can produce.
[Tomb] Wholly concur.
Grav gives several times the bang for the buck at no increase in shipping
space.
[Tomb] Which is why my high-tech strike forces use it fairly
extensively. Just be nice to have more aerodynamic grav tank models.
On another note:
If I can fly a plane in a flight sim (most modern gamers can), then I
can probably fly a grav tank. Avionics, on-board expert systems, etc.
can make it so you don't need any more skill than a truck driver to operate a
flying tank. And if those key systems fail, its gonna drop like a brick
anyway....;)
> --- Tomb <kaladorn@fox.nstn.ca> wrote:
> [Tomb] MDC burns ammo pretty darn fast relative to
Why? If you have the firecontrol for one shot, one kill (which the modern M1A2
does) then why shoot bursts if you don't have to?
> [Tomb] I grant you. And I also thought you were
Eh? Why would I do that?
> [Tomb] For how long?
Long enough.
> How sustainable?
Heh. Don't know. But no one does.
> These numbers are all utterly contestible, but I've
Yeah. But if you have a whole planet to choose from, you won't settle in the
deserts. You'll settle in the
nice parts. They'd still have resources--the only
reason we develop inhospitally located resources is
because all the easy-to-grab ones were used centuries
ago. And at any rate, it's not comprable because grav vehicles don't need air
intakes for their engines.
> Plus something that'd > get you a downcheck in
Of course.
> [Tomb] Yep. You'll argue and then your GAO will say
That's Canadian thinking. World powers can actually afford multiple tanks.
> Plus in the right tech period, a tank is _not_
Sure. But that's a discussion for the Traveller mailing list where tech levels
cap off at about 16 or so (For New Era Regency) rather than GZG.
> [Tomb] Sorry, I should have said "in a world where
Whoops. Thought I said I was talking GZGverse. My mistake.
> If I can fly a plane in a flight sim (most modern
Avionics, on-board > expert systems, etc. > can make
it so you don't need any more skill than a > truck driver to > operate a
flying tank. And if those key systems > fail, its gonna drop > like a brick
anyway.... ;)
One small thought... This is an idea inspired by a modelling consideration.
For my 25mm Grav IFVs, I wasn't happy with the selection of grav hulls
available, so I'm using a GEV model with skirts. The skirts are split into
segments. It occours to me that instead of one big grav module, it might be
better to have 40 or so spread around the bottom of vehicle. That way one or
two can fail without catastrophic crashes.
> And at any rate, it's not comprable because grav
Hmm. Very likely the engines will need cooling. And if they use the amounts of
energy postulated by some mails in this thread, they will need an amount
of cooling the mkes a jet engine a low-power application.
> > [Tomb] Yep. You'll argue and then your GAO will say
Which state has "multiple tanks" ? Meaning two different up-to-date Main
Battle Tank designs operational at the same time?
Not one up-to-date MBT and obsolescent models relegated to second-line
units, nor specialized artillery, IFV etc. vehicles?
> Plus in the right tech period, a tank is _not_
Hmm. You are postulating Grav tanks fighting against todays jet fighters.
Wouldn't fighter design progress as much?
Consider some of the ideas being toted around the aerospace press:
Remote-controlled unmanned sensor drones and fighters
Hypersonic (3000++ Km/h) planes
Networked systems that allow one plane to shoot at a target seen by a
different plane
Stealth, ECM, point-defence systems
Greetings
Must be John A who said:
> That's Canadian thinking. World powers can actually
Karl replied:
> Which state has "multiple tanks" ? Meaning two different up-to-date
That's not the question, because a tank handles only one job right now. a
better question would be "which nations have multiple types of combat
aircraft, and which ones have to make do with a single multi-role type".
> At 09:32 15/11/01 -0800, you wrote:
Obviously John's never been to 'Dune' where ever the 'nice areas' are hostile
:)
G'day,
> Yeah. But if you have a whole planet to choose from,
By the same token why $%^# in your own nest? If you have just got this nice
little planet why destroy the arable land for resources when there's all that
"can't use it for quids" land you could dig up instead. Besides in some cases
there will be resources in certain inhospitable areas purely because that's
the way it worked out or because geology isn't always end user friendly. For
instance these nodules in the Pacific can't be formed in the same way, if at
all, on land so you have to go to the deep ocean to get them, there's just no
choice even if it is inconvenient.
Cheers