Re: Equipment Deployments

TomB wrote:

>1) Yes, I'm assuming 75 implies 2175. It might be incorrect,

Bingo. Yes, the Gauss rifle *may* be more technologically advanced
(which 
may or may not equate to "more modern" or "more effective") than the 
caseless-round rifles... but considering that the only thing which stops
us 
from making effective Gauss rifles *today* is the lack of a compact
enough 
powerpack whereas there are a wide bunch of other problems with the 
caseless rounds (and that the advances in electronics currently go much,

much faster than the advances in propellant chemistry and have done so
for 
the past half-century at least), the "75" could just as easily refer to 
*20*75 as to 2175. If, as I said, it refers to a year at all - which is
by 
no means certain. IMO, you're connecting dots while only seeing less
than 
one-tenth of the dots which are actually out there... you might get a 
correct picture if you're very lucky, but then again you might be
unlucky.

>2) OO said that the m/95 version of the Carl G is very similar to the
>origianl m/48. But it is more advanced (lighter weight manufacture).
>Not all advancements show up in terms of FP/IMP/range/etc.

Exactly.

>And hasn't the ammo evolved significantly over that period?

Completely irrelevant for the CG, because you can fire any CG RCL ammo
type 
(even the very latest one) from any CG RCL (even the very first 
production-run rifle ever built) - and they'll behave almost
identically. 
(The only difference being that the older, heavier weapons are
inherently 
slightly more accurate - but that difference is too small to show up in
SG 
terms.)

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."