grav

John, 

An interesting range of thinking. I have some thoughts:

1) Traveller did this a long time ago. They posited that at some point,
the distinction between ground air and sea combatants vanished. Why?
Sensor tech hit a certain level, as did com tech. Energy was near
limitless so you could push a brick through the atmosphere at stupid
speeds and with stupid levels of manouverability. You could build faster
or slower grav tanks, ones with varying weapons kit, ones with varying
quality sensor or comms, ones with more or less endurance and capability
to operate selaed and ones with more or less armour - all sort of trade
offs for design based on how you planned to fight them. But in essence,
all could fly, deploy from orbit, operate over huge distances. Slow ones
moved about 350 kph, fast ones up around 1000 kph. It really does change
how you fight. But the way Traveller limited it - you need high tech
logistics, high tech trained personel, and a big budget to put this
together. 

2) I question your zero logistics PoV. You don't account for failures.
The Apache has been shown as case in point to be only combat capable
about 50% of the time. Planes spend a lot of downtime for inspections
and rebuilds. Would Grav be any different? Maybe. But when you pile on a
hoi-folloi fire control/search sensor suite, life support, high tech
comms, weapons systems, grav propulsion and avionics, etc. - You have a
complex beast that probably requires some fair level of logistical
support even if they are individually well designed, robust systems with
hot swappable components. I think you'll still see a need for logistics,
and in this case logistics forces that can operate on a planetary scale
to deliver supply, recover vehicles, conduct in-field repairs anywhere
on the planet. 

3) There is a lot of energy in one atom of hydrogen. It is surprising
how much energy you could get from fusion. Small amounts of fuel (John
might be a wee bit on the short side, but a fair sized tank of hydrogen
(fuel cell) could support a tank for quite a while. Especially if it
didn't use a DFFG but instead used GMS or other non-energy-consumptive
main armament. The more shooting with energy consuming weapons, the more
high speed manouvering, etc. the faster you'll burn fuel. This is no
different than today - a harrier can VTO, but it burns a lot of fuel
doing it. Better to take off from a ramp. VTOs are showy, but waste fuel
where they aren't needed. Same logic with grav vehicles - don't fly fast
when you don't have to. Don't shoot the big gun when it isn't required,
etc. 

4) You could design special purpose grav tanks for varying niches. I
think you'll find that multipurpose ones (given a presumed expense to
move them to systems far away and the global scale of their ops) may be
more favoured. I have a choice: Send three types that do three jobs
well, or one that can do three jobs somewhat okay. I'm a CFO... what do
I send? One. The almighty buck will drive future militaries and
governments just like it does in most places today. Multirole may win
out in many cases. Only very rich countries will be able to do otherwise
(maybe the NAC) or maybe only for some forces.

5) Expense will limit how many forces you can field. Maybe I'm the NAC
and can only field a company of grav-mobile infantry and a squadron of
grav-mobile tanks to take on a local enemy on a planet. They can put
together four brigades of mech infantry, some aerospace interceptors,
arty, and some locally produced light armour (a demi-brigade). Sure, I
have orbital fire support, comms, and mobility. I have hitting power in
a concentrated package. But my men can die and I take casualties badly.
.... Grav only makes conventional forces useless in a 1:1 situation. It
is a force multiplier (a great one no doubt, just like AC is a force
multiplier for movement over water and crappy terrain before grav is
available) but basic numbers and supplies of ready replacements make a
difference. 

Nice thoughts on HUMINT too. 

Tomb.