Re: GEVs

On Thu, 2 Dec 1999 12:26:43 -0500, kaladorn@fox.nstn.ca wrote:

>The GEV of 2183 will
>
>A) use a limited form of vectored thrust and maybe skirts to enhance
>the effect but can use thrust alone for limited periods to transit
>from hills to flats - and the thrust from a turbine parallel to the
>hillside WILL push a GEV up a hill

I'm curious how this will happen. I think aeordymanics are against you.
Little
tiny blades travelling very fast still won't give you the lift
necessary, I
don't think, even for short periods of time.

The other problem I see is one of mass of the propulsion system to
overall
mass of the vehicle. It seems with a GEV far too much of the vehicle has
to be
used for propulsion. You need air ducts, the engine, the blades, the
motor
drive attached to the blades... lost of stuff there that takes up space
(increasing the vehicle's volume) or weight. I haven't done a study on
it, but
it wouldn't surprise me if the power to weight ratio of a GEV is higher
than
that of any other tank.

I will say that there is enough leeway to suspend my disbelief for the
purposes of a game (or a novel). I mean, we're not talking plasma
farting bugs
the size of houses (ala the Starship Troopers movie).

Still, I don't think these will make an appearance in the real world. I
think
in the real world the emphasis will be on avoiding being hit. I see very
small
tanks, smaller than the Swedish S-Tank, but similar in design. I see
them run
by AIs or remote piloted. I see the gun mounted on a rising platform
that
allows 360 degree traverse but no need for a turrent. I see them being
relatively easy to mass produce, low em signature and visual profile,
and no
training time required. 

I did think of something, though... I think with a thicker atmosphere
you get
more lift from a slower moving propellor (also more drag due to the
thicker
"fluid" through which the craft travels). A thick atmosphere might make
GEVs
with "hop" capability more feasible.

This is something DS2 and SG2 don't take into consideration THAT much.
There
is little in the way of rules for extreme atmospheres. It would be fun
to run
some games in extreme conditions (high gravity, thick atmosphere,
corrosive
atmosphere...). Mobility, firepower, even morale would all be
affected...

>AND/OR
>
>B) Have other methods like null-grav packs or active skirts or who
>knows what.
>
>If we can believe in abundant power, we can believe a GEV can climb a
>hill. Or at least, I can. If I can buy anti-gravity, I can buy GEVs
>climbing hills. And moving through scrub. Heavy forest is bad, but it
>is for tracklayers too. And if anyone has ever seen Alberta or
>Saskatchewan, there is plenty of GEV playground there. The same with
>other plains/deserts. And lakes, swamps, rivers, the arctic, the
>antarctic, etc.
>
>They aren't the be all end all (I think that is grav) but they sure do
>have a lot of features that make them attractive for a lot of
>operations).
>
>Additionally, someone said something about a hockey puck analogy.
>Think about it. You may have a lower coefficient of friction than a
>tracklayer, but you still mass a huge amount. A round striking you
>would certainly impart a very minimal change in your vector, even if
>it was a big one. It would be more than to a corresponding tracklayer
>(unless the GEV was grounded) but still not huge. The round just does
>not have the energy to alter the momentum of the mass effectively.
>
>As for the recoil reduction from using small projectiles gradually
>accelerated:
>
>Gradual acceleration must take some length of barrell. This may
>penalize the AFV in close terrain. It looks fine on a static platform
>with fish-tank attached, but try to put something like that into a
>tank and get meaningful damage output without significant impulse to
>the tank firing the weapon. I'm not saying it won't be better than a
>CPR gun, but it isn't a low recoil weapon. Especially if you want
>ROF - that means the round must clear the barrell (even if you do
>multi-round simultaneous staggered fire) reasonably expediently, which
>means a gradual acceleration is a problem. As does target movement -
>if I press the firing stud after lining up my shot, I want it there
>NOW not later. So a slow launch isn't in line with that. I want the
>round GONE. That probably involves recoil. If I want a low recoil
>weapon, I pick a MD over a CPR gun. But even lower, I pick a HEL over
>either of those other two.
>
>Thomas Barclay
>Software UberMensch
>xwave solutions
>(613) 831-2018 x 3008
>
>

Allan Goodall		       agoodall@interlog.com
Goodall's Grotto: http://www.interlog.com/~agoodall/

"Surprisingly, when you throw two naked women with sex
toys into a living room full of drunken men, things 
always go bad." - Kyle Baker, "You Are Here"