Re: [SG2] weapons

> I SAW your comments, you'll notice my comments were in
> REPLY to them.  The question I have is this:	If the
> enemy has sophisticated EMP weaponry, why the hell are
> they sporting low-tech RR's?

Because they are effective against everything except the front of tank,
they
are cheap so you can build ten times as many then GMS for the same
money,
and this means you can affordably stockpile large numbers all over the
place.

> You missed my point -- if you're just going to say
> "EMP", wave your hand, and that's the end of all
> arguements for High-tech, you're not really addressing
> the issue of future RR/LVC Vs. PDs on their own
> merits.

Assume side A is lower tech then side B.  Side A intiates the use
technology
destroying warheads.  Side B retailates in kind.  End result, B has
farther
to fall, so B's combat effectiveness and morale will tend fall much more
so
then for A.

> Furthermore, you've painted yourself into a corner.
> By presenting these weapons as the equivalent of the
> PIAT in your example, you've put them forward as the
> low tech, low cost alternative to higher velocity
> weapons and GMS's.  But as soon as obstacles to their
> effectiveness are presented, eg PDS/ADS, the solution
> to the problem has been to add high tech, high cost
> features to the weapon, eg ECM chips, seeker/guidance
> systems, sandcasters, or support the weapon with high
> tech combined arms (popping an ECM).	It's not really
> a low tech/low cost alternative any more, then, is it?

All you need is a microwave radiation warhead to deal with PDS.  The
U.S. is
doing R&D in it right now.

ias