Re: DS2/SG2 artillery

>the infantry by killing the other guy's tanks, which can kill your
>apc's.
>But if your apc's are as tough and as heavily armed as a tank, why
>bother
>having tanks?

Well once again we get into a similar discussion that we had about
multirole assault landers/interface landers. It's not an issue of
technology it's an operational issue, maybe go back and check out the
discussions on that which we had a  few months ago, it still holds true
with why every vehicle shouldn't be an APC. It seems that on this list
it's
incredible easy to thing that the technical issues are the only ones of
relevance in combat, they are actually down the list 

>** Counterpoint:
>In a tank, I put in maximum weapons for my space or engine power (and
>armour). In an APC, I put in troops. They take up space and consume
>thrust or lift or whatever. A tank would always have a point as it
would
>always have heavier armour and more FP than an IFV. Even if the IFV
>mounts a DFFG and a GMS/H.

Yep. That too.

>And if you're fighting with these sorts of zoomie high tech flying
>apc's,
>"ground" warfare will probably be about short, sharp, small fights
>between
>dispersed forces that manoever for position to sieze strategic bits of
>land
>or get the other guy's depots.  No percentage in mass-battle type
>fighting,
>'cause the other guy will just slam you with ortillery if you
>concentrate
>too heavily.
>
>** This reminds me very much of the Traveller universe. The Imperial
>Marine APCs and Grav Tanks were like a flying M1 armed with fusion guns
>and TacMissiles. They were imprevious to small and many large arms.
They
>were armed horrendously, were out-atmosphere capable (no interface
>transport, thank you very much) and could go hundreds of kph. The
>infantry, when it debussed, was PA with Plasma Guns. Very Very Nasty.
>Also very very expensive and small in number. And yes, orbital
>superiority is a big plus.

And another thing, super-mega tanks will just generate a spate of more
lethal personal AT weapons, just as they always do.

>I don't see too much place for "conventioal" artillery at anything
>larger
>than the platoon mortar size when you can do it from orbit.
>
>** Assuming you have dedicated fleet elements. I think you may still
>want company and battalion assets. But regimental artillery definitely
>falls under the ortillery tab I think.
>
>If you don't
>have some forces in orbit, then you're toast anyway 'cause he
>ortilleries
>you into the stone age whenever you concentrate....

I still don't get the assumption that something fired form 200 miles
(ortillery) up will be more accurate (or cost effective) than something
fired from 10 miles away (SP arty) from the ground. I can't make that
leap
of faith very easily since ground based fire technology wion't be moving
forward just as well as space-based fire control.

Los