To Grav or not to Grav?

OK. . . 

98% of what I'm going to say here is completely
removed from the purview of any of the game systems
and is soley for flavor and to start some thought in
the minds of those who are considering home-brewing a
campaign ruleset for Dirtside II or Stargrunt.

What exactally does it mean to use grav vehicles?  I
presume from the term that it means your vehicles have
a contra-gravitic suspension, and probably a
reactionless thrust mechanism (as spacecraft do). 
They are powered by a fusion engine.  This means you
have effectively unlimited endurance (a few gallons of
hydrogen being enough to fuel the vehicle for a month
of combat operations).	You are also capable of flying
at any altitude--including into space, limited only by
your life support.

>From a design perspective, this creates some
interesting implications.  First, the difference
between land and water vehicles is irrelevant.	Why
have a specifically-designed coastal patrol vessel
when you can use your main battle tanks to go sink
ships?	The only difference would be that a grav
vehicle designed for this role would carry different
electronics suites from one intended to hunt tanks on
land.  The difference between aerospace fighters,
VTOLs, and Grav tanks is a matter of streamlining and
power of engines rather than fundamental design
differences.  Aerospace fighters are grav vehicles
designed for hypersonic flight and extended
exo-atmospheric operations.  VTOLs are grav vehicles
designed to fly a low altitudes (but not hovering a
few feet above the ground) at moderate speeds and
provide fire support.  As such they are less heavily
armored than their 'grav tank' counterparts, but are
considerably faster.  And at the bottom of the speed
spectrum is the grav tank, designed with weight of
armor and controllability at altitudes as low as 2-3
feet being the primary requirements.  They can achieve
higher speeds if they move up to VTOL operating
altitudes, but are limited severely in maximum speed
by their non-aerodynamic shape.  They are also more
vulnerable to detection at that height, and their
armor is not distributed in such a way as to properly
protect them from ground fire.	I would treat (for
DSII purposes) flying grav vehicles as being 1
(possibly 2) size categories larger by signature, as
well as penalizing the armor rating for being shot at
through the 'bottom' arc.

What are the implications of this militarily speaking?

First, there is complete freedom from the fuel
logistical tail.  Instead of convoys of tanker trucks
hauling distilled petroleum products (which require a
source of petroleum, and a chemical industry in place
to refine them), an attacking force need only bring
one or two hydrogen crackers per batallion, which can
refine the fuel from any given water source in a
single afternoon, fuel up the task force in a few
hours (probably through in-flight refuelling) and then
go take a nap for a couple weeks until they are needed
again.

Second, there is freedom from terrain.	While grav
tanks/trucks can be held up by bad terrain when
operating "tactically", at extremely low level,
hopping up 100' or so makes any terrain easy.  Of
course they are more vulnerable to attack at this
height, but when you have a whole planet to maneuver
on and tiny forces opposing you (many colony world
would be hard pressed to come up with a brigade or two
of really first-rate troops) that still leaves a lot
of options.  In fact, grav vehicles operating in this
mode most resemble early air assault operations--they
have to escorted by dedicated air combat vehicles
(VTOLs and/or aerospace fighters) and the transported
troops are hideously vulnerable until they touch down.
 They could not operate in an intense enemy air
defense environment, and take heavy casualties if air
assaulted directly into contact.  However those early
air assault troops were light infantry, supported by
manpacked mortars and light towed artillery and with
limited sustainability.  A fully grav-mounted
batallion task force can put companies of heavy armor
or mechanized infantry behind enemy positions with all
the logistical assets to support them.	The
possibilities are endless.

There's also the issue of self-deployability.  A
properly sealed and insulated grav tank could easily
conduct an assault from orbit without requiring a
lander.  It might take a little work--possibly a
bolt-on ablative heat shield on the underside.	But
the sealing needed is already present as a
countermeasure against chemical weapons.  

Once you are on the same planet as the enemy, grav
vehicles have a gross advantage in deployability as
well.  While they don't have the life support
facilities to fly around the world with their crews
and passengers inside, they could be easily flown on
automatic pilot (escorted, of course) to a nearby
base, with their crews brought in more conventionally.
 And again, neither mountains nor rivers nor oceans
are a significant obstacle.  Meanwhile GEVs, tracked
vehicles, and wheels are stuck aboard a slow-moving
ship or being hauled a handful at a time aboard
aircraft.

In fact, these factors, taken together suggest that in
event of a conflict between conventionally-propelled
units and an all-grav force, the conventional force
would be at such a disadvantage as to render it
meaningless.

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals