Re: Tanks

On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Thomas Barclay of the Clan Barclay wrote:

> ** I'll give you that, but why don't I have GSR and such things for
> doing watches around the bivouac?

Well, you still want the mark one eyeball there to watch over things. 

> ** And have I abandoned my infantry support?

Tank doctrine includes it where its available, but the crunchies aren't 
always there to help watch for Red Force scouts. 

> ** I'm sure the first people who saw tanks made comments about their
> logistics too.
> ** Also, why couldn't we give our tankers some light PA to wear? Safer
> if they get hit.

It'd be really bulky and uncomfortable? I have a big car, I feel pretty 
damn uncomfortable wearing one of my motorcycle jackets inside it. Just 
operating the controls (steering wheel, gear shift, etc). 

> ** As for the comment made elsewhere about autoloaders being slower...
> that's TODAY's autoloaders
> which I equate to the muzzle loading musket. We eventually developed
the
> repeating rifle then a number
> of nasty autofire variants. How about a G11 like rotating breech? I
bet
> a big version of that could load
> very quickly.

Big fast auto loaders exist, its just that the linkage and such needed
to 
make them work are really bulky. The auto loaders I think of are the
kind 
that are onboard naval vessels and feed the 5" guns. Those turrets _do 
not just_ mount on the deck. They go several decks through and are quite

bulky. The few other tanks that have auto loaders that take little space

are those that have a revolver style arrangement. Thats, great for fast 
followup shots, however, they are short on loads (8-10 ready use rounds 
as I recall) and they must be replenished from outside the tank. Not the

best thing to do with a main battle tank in the middle of a pitched 
battle. 

> ** I guess my point is one should (if playing SF) try to forsee the
> direction technology is going in terms
> of increasing capability and its force multiplier effects. It serves
to
> help do more with less. You can't do
> everything with nothing (yet) but you can certainly see that
technology
> will change our lives and the lives
> of soldiers by automating many tasks that otherwise would be done
> manually and by simplifying (if the

True, but if you can make a self healing and tensioning track, a power 
pack that is easy to change out with 2 guys, computers that aren't
fooled 
and are 100% reliable, and an auto loader that needs little work to keep

it humming (not to mention space and is fast) then it will be all rosey 
and cheerful. 

> have to ship a new Framboozle drive out to your tank 30 ly away.

If you are smart, you've taken more than enough along with you and your 
force. You did bring field repair kit right? You are going to be able to

recover and repair damaged tanks and AFVs right?

> ** Speaking of which, it would be an interesting thing to work into
DS3
> to have a reliability factor. Let
> people build older tech not because it is bigger or clunkier, but
> because it is proven and breaks down less.
> In campaign games, this could be a major consideration for a force
with
> a long logistics tail (like across
> the galaxy...).

Yep, if you can easily repair an IC engine on Delta Tau 4, from locally 
obtained spares then you are far better off than if you need to have a 
shuttle (COD flight?) deliver a fusion powerpack from the sterile
production 
floors of New Bremen...

------------------------------------------------------------------
- Ryan Montieth Gill	  NRA / DoD# 0780 (Smug #1) / AMA / SOHC -
- ryan.gill@turner.com	    I speak not for CNN, nor they for me -
- rmgill@mindspring.com 	     www.mindspring.com/~rmgill/ -
- '85 Honda CB700S  -  '72 Honda CB750K  - '76 Chevy MonteCarlo  -
------------------------------------------------------------------
-  No more limits on the 2nd amendment. Enforce the extant laws  -
------------------------------------------------------------------