Re: GEVs/Grav

Thomas Barclay wrote in reply to Allan:

> 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.
> 
> ** Pardon? Unless you eject a counterbalancing projectile, you'll
> still have recoil. The only time that might change (and this changes
> ALL the rules) is if tech is advanced far enough to make intertial
> compensators for guns 

....which you have, if you have grav propulsion at all.

>  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 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.
> 
> ** Counter:
> 1) GEVs could have limited hop capability to pass over trenches and
> some obstacles. They are less likely to set off mines (more
> distributed weight, higher off the ground).

Considering that many modern AT mines have magnetic and acoustic
sensors as well as seismic ones, the lower pressure won't help you too
much. Yes, the hovercraft is (could be, at least) higher off the ground
than a tracked vehicle, but that'll only protect the crew - an AT mine
going off under it will cripple the skirts and/or fans, effectively
M-killing it.
 
> 2) Speed - even with a set amount of max power for the vehicle, and a
> GEV wasting a bunch for lift, it'd still potentially go faster for
> several reasons. Low friction makes for efficient energy usage for
> travel.

Low ground friction also less efficient accelleration and wider turn
arcs. High speed, low maneuverability - particularly if you put heavy
armour on the vehicle.

I think you're overestimating the importance of fusion power, too. A
bit like having a miniature nuclear reactor powering your tanks IMO :-/

Regards,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry