Re: GEV and Grav Vehicles

In a message dated 11/29/99 11:40:23 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
agoodall@interlog.com writes:

> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 18:06:30 -0500, kaladorn@fox.nstn.ca wrote:
>  
>  >1) Oerjan is right in a sense - Grav kills other manouvre tech not a
>  >weapons system. My point was it kills ground mobile arty. Arty that
>  >can fly probably uses something more like helicopter armaments
>  >(Mavericks, Hellfires, Rockets, etc) rather than something like a
>  >200mm gun, I'd think. Though there may be a niche for flying arty
>  >platforms that still land to shoot.
>  
>  Chemical propellent is still pretty efficient. You launch a load into
the 
> air
>  and let gravity drop it where you want it. I think you'll always be
able to
>  launch heavier warheads using chemical (or mass driver) propellent.
In 
fact,
>  mass driver artillery may be a better bet for grav vehicles,
particularly 
if
>  they are already using fusion power for the anti-grav units. Recoil
won't 
be 
> a
>  problem.
>  

Mass drivers would still create plenty of recoil--I am assuming by
saying 
that recoil won't be a problem you are assuming the anti-grav could just
dial 
up a bit more "thrust" in order to counteract the recoil. 
Unfortunately, if 
it had the capability to dial up that thrust, wouldn't it just be a 
higher-rated grav unit (faster, higher flying, whatever)?  

>  >3) Can we build a hovercraft that ways 80 tons, carries the kind of
>  >armour a Leopard II or Challenger or late model Abrams does, mounts
a
>  >120-140mm CPR gun or another big main weapon? I have my doubts. 
>  
>  You also have to ask yourself "why". What do you gain out of ground
effect
>  tank. Ground effect tanks are actually not THAT useful, David Drake
not
>  withstanding. There is a very real limit to the slope a GEV could
scale,
>  regardless of the slope's potential traction. You raise the skirt too
much 
> and
>  you lose lift.

I think that assumes that we're dealing with the "marginal" powerplant
type 
GEV's currently in use.  If we were talking about something that
basically 
had the "thrust" (with the help of limited ground effect) to hover--like
a 
helicopter--then we aren't really talking about something that would
need a 
vulnerable skirt.  Of course, such a vehicle would almost definitely
require 
a fusion or a-matter plant and could basically fly like a VTOL, but what
the 
heck!

snip

>  wouldn't need to be as big. This is just off the top of my head, too.
I 
sure
>  wouldn't want to be infantry riding beside a GEV. You couldn't be
that 
close
>  (due to the ground effect) and imagine standing beside one when it
gets 
hit 
> in
>  the side with an anti-tank weapon. Ever play table air hockey?
Imagine you'
> re
>  an ant and the GEV is a puck! Nasty!

Ouch--not a pleasant thought, especially for those of us that like
grunts.

>  
>  > I think if we had Fusion or
>  >A-Matter power, that'd be a non issue. But with gas engines or power
>  >cells, it is an issue.
>  
>  I think that tracked movement would still be more efficient. You
don't 
have 
> to
>  lift and propel the tank, just propel it forward. I think a tracked
vehicle
>  would be able to move faster than a GEV given the same power plant.
Of 
> course,
>  ground pressure would be more of a problem in a tank, as the weight
is 
> spread
>  over a smaller area. 

And you'd have to watch for throwing tracks--supposedly (and I'm not a 
tanker, so this is hearsay) the speed governors placed on the Abrams
were 
there to prevent some hot dog to scoot around at speeds that increased
the 
chances of throwing tracks.

>  
>  >4) GEVs can move through swamps and if packing non-recoil weapons
>  >could even fight there. I agree CPR arty would be problematic.
>  
>  That's about the only type of terrain where it has an advantage.
Okay, mud 
> and
>  snow would be advantageous. But you still have that whole "slopes
cause
>  spilling of air out of the curtain" problem.
>  
>  Anti grav, however, shouldn't have this problem...
>  
>  

Rob