Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: was Re: [SG3]: What if?

["Binhan Lin" <binhan.lin@xxxxxxxxx>]

The original analogy was trying to extrapolate ground weapons and infantry into the future - how would future technology change the arms race in terms of range, LOS etc.  Are ranges of 1000 m reasonable for a hand-held weapon?  Are LOS ranges of 100-500m reasonable? or will technologies such as hyper-velocity projectiles combined with x-ray sensors make anything less than 10 feet of granite ineffective as protection or camoflauge?  Will there be an arms race in detection and counter-measures - chamelon clothing (IR/Visible) vs. new detectors?  Will weapons be automated? Will UAV's for individual soldiers be common?

 

The WWI to modern aircraft analogy was to show how just 90 years can completely change the aspect of warfare.  If infantry weapons proceed at the same rate, what would infantry weapons look like in future, or would there even be infantry?

 

In the future, would a colonial army armed with the equivalent of today's weapons stand a chance against the top-notch armies of the future?

 

-Binhan
 

On 2/7/08, Allan Goodall <agoodall@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 7, 2008 1:23 PM, Binhan Lin <binhan.lin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Airspeeds of a WWI aircraft are well into the range of modern helicopters,
> and the general consensus is that helicopters are easy pickings for modern
> jets.

And this all begs a question: what's the tactical or strategic reason
for engaging the WWI aircraft in the first place?

The biplane can't do a thing, essentially, to the Raptor. The Raptor
can drop anti-personnel and anti-fortification munitions on troops
with pinpoint accuracy, at least compared to WWI artillery standards.

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l