Re: Elevation/Depression of AFV main arms

At 01:17 PM 3/22/00 -0500, Thomas.Barclay wrote:
>As was pointed out, the range of elevation/depression angles for most
modern
>AFVs is a product of the space in the vehicle and the weapon's shape
and
>size (which serves to restrict the amount of elevation or depression
>possible. 
>
>Now, if one was using a casement turret (unmanned), one might have more
>capability in this regard. The crew could occupy the body of the tank
(safe
>and sound behind a hill or wall if a fight erupts). This type of design
was
>proposed in Twilight 2000 for the next generation US MBT. I believe
2300AD
>had a hovertank with this type of remote turret. But a standard
>gun-in-turret-with-crew style of tank has limitations based on tank
profile
>(height mostly). 

I remember seeing concept designs for "cherry picker" (a telescoping arm
type deal that could elevate weapons quite a bit above the hull of the
vehicle) mounts for weapons somewhere.	The benifit is you could park
the
vehicle behind cover, then have the weapon pop up and fire, and you
could
cover those dead zones.

I don't know how feasable this would be with current tech, seems like
the
whole thing would hinge on having very reliable sensors and some sort of
reload work-around for large caliber weapons.  It should go with out
saying
that I could be talking out my ass here.

In Dirt Side, where you have grav MBTs with lasers and fusion guns, I
wouldn't let silly little things like that get in the way of using it
for
some good old fashoned techno-babble about why you don't really have to
plot out dead zones.

I'm waiting for the Future(TM) where our cloths will all be one-piece
coveralls, doors will slide into the wall when you walk up to them, and
miniatures will have little laser pointers built into their weapons so
you
can determine LOS on the fly.

Ndege Diamond
-
Every dogma has its day.
-
Nezach(at)earthlink(dot)net