Re: GEV and Grav Vehicles

On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 18:06:30 -0500, kaladorn@fox.nstn.ca wrote:

>1) Oerjan is right in a sense - Grav kills other manouvre tech not a
>weapons system. My point was it kills ground mobile arty. Arty that
>can fly probably uses something more like helicopter armaments
>(Mavericks, Hellfires, Rockets, etc) rather than something like a
>200mm gun, I'd think. Though there may be a niche for flying arty
>platforms that still land to shoot.

Chemical propellent is still pretty efficient. You launch a load into
the air
and let gravity drop it where you want it. I think you'll always be able
to
launch heavier warheads using chemical (or mass driver) propellent. In
fact,
mass driver artillery may be a better bet for grav vehicles,
particularly if
they are already using fusion power for the anti-grav units. Recoil
won't be a
problem.

>3) Can we build a hovercraft that ways 80 tons, carries the kind of
>armour a Leopard II or Challenger or late model Abrams does, mounts a
>120-140mm CPR gun or another big main weapon? I have my doubts. 

You also have to ask yourself "why". What do you gain out of ground
effect
tank. Ground effect tanks are actually not THAT useful, David Drake not
withstanding. There is a very real limit to the slope a GEV could scale,
regardless of the slope's potential traction. You raise the skirt too
much and
you lose lift. For that matter, you can't easily tilt the vehicle. I
think you
could probably kill a GEV with deep, wide trenches. True, that kills
tracked
AFVs too, but I'd imagine that narrower trenches would have a nasty
effect on
GEVs but allow tracked vehicles to pass. Likewise, anti-tank "dragon's
teeth"
wouldn't need to be as big. This is just off the top of my head, too. I
sure
wouldn't want to be infantry riding beside a GEV. You couldn't be that
close
(due to the ground effect) and imagine standing beside one when it gets
hit in
the side with an anti-tank weapon. Ever play table air hockey? Imagine
you're
an ant and the GEV is a puck! Nasty!

> I think if we had Fusion or
>A-Matter power, that'd be a non issue. But with gas engines or power
>cells, it is an issue.

I think that tracked movement would still be more efficient. You don't
have to
lift and propel the tank, just propel it forward. I think a tracked
vehicle
would be able to move faster than a GEV given the same power plant. Of
course,
ground pressure would be more of a problem in a tank, as the weight is
spread
over a smaller area. 

>4) GEVs can move through swamps and if packing non-recoil weapons
>could even fight there. I agree CPR arty would be problematic.

That's about the only type of terrain where it has an advantage. Okay,
mud and
snow would be advantageous. But you still have that whole "slopes cause
spilling of air out of the curtain" problem.

Anti grav, however, shouldn't have this problem...

Allan Goodall		       agoodall@interlog.com
Goodall's Grotto: http://www.interlog.com/~agoodall/

"Surprisingly, when you throw two naked women with sex
toys into a living room full of drunken men, things 
always go bad." - Kyle Baker, "You Are Here"