Re: [GZG] Subject: Re: What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lAdr
ian1 wrote:
> emu2020@comcast.net wrote:
>   
>> You comment on weight and transport is one of the most compelling
points. In a sci-fi setting where we are transporting vehicles across
the stars, ever ounce is going to count unless your universe has reduced
space travel to its most casual level, but most of the GZG settings I
see talked about, do not. In these settings, lighter, more compact
vehicles would be the norm in colonial forces. Something along the lines
of the Stryker make much more sense as a colonial weapons platform.
>>     
> I know little if anything about mechanics but aren't hovercraft/GEVs
less complicated than wheeled tracked vehicles, with no need to replace
wheels/tracks or broken suspension, etc.
>   
Maybe, maybe not. Okay,  no wheels, tracks or suspension (or is there?),

BUT... you still need some kind of supports for when the thing is shut 
down, and like helos, it could help if a vehicle can be pushed around by

hand (assuming it's light enough for that), which means wheels of some 
sort, even if unpowered -- in fact, a lot of helicopter design features 
could be relevant. Shafting from engine(s) to fans, for instance, 
including possible multiply-redundant arrangements to allow for engine 
failure and/or combat damage.

The point is that, depending on the technology and PSB you assume, a GEV

AFV could be lighter and simpler than conventional tracks or wheeled 
vehicles, or equally complex, just in a different way, or even more 
complicated, but that is counterbalanced by the increase in mobility 
that it gives and the resulting tactical applications --or not. You pays

your money and takes your choice -- or the battle you are to fight does.

Phil