1) Trailers. Grav trailer: why? As you pointed out in our offline discussion
of appropriate engineering assets, having a variety of trailers you can attach
just makes sense. You can preposition certain things in place and thus allow
yourself multi-role capability without having multiple primary vehicles.
Maybe the AG unit (or GEV) unit in the trailer is powered by some sort of
electrical PTO from the main vehicle (hence they don't actually need a
powerplant or batteries). But I can see building a grav trailer if the rest of
my force is grav (just for equal mobility). I can also see building a Grav
CEV. Something tells me a grav blade would be excellent at hacking down trees
and removing obstructions...
2) John A.
Good to have you back, Captain Controversy. :-)
So I take it if I run some FSE vs. NSL SG at the next ECC, you'll be joining
the NSL?:) We'll resume our offline engineering thread shortly.... your advice
was good. I'm still struggling with some of the sticking points (how to get a
plow/clearance vehicle using GEV....) and finding minis - till I cast my
own
- will be a pain. I got sidelined by work for ECC, but I'll be in touch
within the next couple of weeks.
3) Barbarians
- There was a place called Stalingrad
- Germans were there
- Russians were there
- There were snipers
- There was propaganda
- Anything else is highly speculative
- How did a school commandant get to be "the best sniper"?
- How does a Colonel keep up his sniper abilities?
(Most good snipers were NCOs....)
- Where'd Ed Harris' character get some of the awards he is wearing if
he was a school commandant? (Was he a great WW1 sniper?)
And to comment on something said by Chris: How about "Boy meets Girl. Boy
meets Vodka. Boy likes Vodka more than
Girl."?
> And to comment on something said by Chris:
That's not the Official Soviet Dogma, though, although I grant you it's likely
more accurate. IIRC the Russian government financed their share of the
Napoleonic war solely through a tax on vodka (England and
> --- "Barclay, Tom" <tomb@bitheads.com> wrote:
> Maybe the AG unit (or GEV) unit in the trailer is
I could see this if the towing vehicle were
FGP-powered. So you've have a half-cost suspension
and some (effectively free) heavy-duty power
connections. There are some serious engineering problems, since one of the
requirements for any
trailer I'd want is the ability to quick-disconnect
while moving (note: No US trailer can do this) and doing so while "in flight"
could be a bit disasterous. But that's overcomable.
> 2) John A.
Only if I'm not busy at the CanAm scenario running a
small unit tactics clinic--although from the ECCIV
size what us 'Mericans really needed was some decent dice karma.;) Someone
wanna let me use house rules for breaching buildings and using satchel
charges?
> 3) Barbarians
Good topic under which to discuss Slavs and minor Germanic tribes...
> - There was a place called Stalingrad
Alles gut.
> - How did a school commandant get to be "the best
Presumably one takes one's best snipers offline to run one's sniper school?
> - How does a Colonel keep up his sniper abilities?
Well, there's some speculation that the officer in question was actually an
unknown NCO who was assigned officer rank by the propoganda machine. We'll
never know since the Whermacht destroyed his records after his death.
> Absender: johnmatkinson@yahoo.com
Like the Angles and Saxons ;-)
Greetings
> --- KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:
Yup. Remember, the original definition of the term now rendered "barbarian"
was "Anyone not Greek." This evolved into "Anyone not Roman" when they
conquered the part of the world worth having.
JohnA said:
> > Good topic under which to discuss Slavs and minor
Karl riposted:
> Like the Angles and Saxons ;-)
JohnA replied:
> Yup. Remember, the original definition of the term
For those of you not familiar with JohnA this may not make much sense, until
you know that his Future History empire is the
Byzantines-in-Space, details on his site which is available from the web
ring.
> Barclay, Tom wrote:
> 1) Trailers.
The grav trailer needs its own near-full-sized grav engine. Simply
providing the lifting force isn't enough; it also needs the
side-to-side
maneuvering capability as well or it'll whip out in every curve the main
vehicle makes (imagine driving with a loaded trailer on smooth ice,
with smooth tyres... then remove the ground friction :-/ ). The only
thing which keeps a usable grav trailer from being a straight-up
robotic vehicle is that it'd take its maneuvering commands from the
main vehicle instead of from an on-board computer brain. GEV trailers
have exactly the same problem.
> Maybe the AG unit (or GEV) unit in the trailer is powered by some
That assumes a *seriously* over-sized powerplant on the main vehicle,
though. Very unlikely, unless the main vehicle is purpose-built for
towing
grav/GEV trailers.
Regards,
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> That assumes a *seriously* over-sized powerplant on
Not really. I mean, a standard-sized FGP plant has
excess capacity for a seriously powerful laser or mass driver, and the
vehicles most likely to carry trailers
aren't likely to be particularly well-armed (the
original discussion that sparked this line of thought was for using trailers
towed by engineer vehicles and engineer squad vehicles).
--- "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:
> JohnA said:
Yeah. I'm a Romanized barbarian.:) But then, so was Leo the Isaurian.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> That assumes a *seriously* over-sized powerplant on
Yes, really. The standard-sized FGP plant powers the seriously powerful
laser or mass driver with its spare change. A HMT or CFE plant can power a
small laser, mass driver or GEV vehicle, but you *must* have an
FGP to use Grav - which indicates that Grav propulsion requires orders
of magnitude more power than the difference between a big laser/mass
driver and a small one.
> and the vehicles most likely to carry trailers aren't likely to be
In which case those vehicles are the very purpose-built trailer-towers
I mentioned as the exception to the general rule above. Your suggested rule
makes it just as easy for an MBT or an SPG to tow a trailer as it
is for a purpose-built tractor, however... and the SPGs at least have a
*very* good reason to do so.
Regards,
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> In which case those vehicles are the very
So make it a rule that Grav vehicles towing a grav trailer should not carry
any HEL, artillery (since larger artillery is mass driver anyway) or MDC
armament?
> rule makes it just as easy for an MBT or an SPG to
It never ocoured to me that anyone would NOT buy a real ammo vehicle for their
artillery pieces of medium and larger caliber.
----------
> Från: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com>
Still doesn't get around the order-of-magnitudes difference in
continous power requirement between a big HEL/MDC and a grav vehicle.
You have to allow small HMT- and possibly CFE-powered grav drives as
well to make the design rule consistent.
> rule makes it just as easy for an MBT or an SPG to tow a trailer as
With the rule you originally suggested, there'd be no real reason to buy real
ammo vehicles. A trailer would do just as well... better, if
you're looking at a Size-3 or Size-4 SPG.
Regards,