Tanks

> ** I work in computers. I trust computers with lives on a daily basis
> because our modern society requires it. I'm fairly certain that at
some
> point, we'll be superflous for many tasks. It might not be by 2185...
> that is debatable, but it will probably happen.

I like high tech thing, but high tech things fail. Is it easier to carry

50 RPVs or a grunt that can fight and also call artillery? Can you 
provide parts for those RPV's on planet? 
=====================================================
Depends. How bigs my RPV? What does it cost me sitting in transport
packing?
Do I need to bring air, food, doctors, dentists, etc. etc. to support
it?
Can I provide spare parts for my grunt on the planet? I lose 1 grunt, I
lose
the whole show. I lose 1 RPV, I uncork the other 49. And *my* RPV can
call
artillery :)
=====================================================
> ** It is a matter of balance. If it costs me to send guys to space and
> losing them is politically expensive and costs a lot of retraining and
> replacement bucks, then maybe just maybe one looks at other ways to do
> the same job.

It costs you to send anything into space. We are still talking about 
having people here in combat right? This is because they are still 
flexible and mobile enough to fight. The ai's are great for giving the 
human extra input but your human is the one that fights. 
=====================================================
Right, but there is every balance here from 1 guy to lead a robotized
force
to an army with no tech and all soldiers. All we're arguing about is
where
the balance lies. Where the human input exists.
=====================================================

> ** Let us further presume that we can develop for example a high speed
> autoloader and feed system like a G-11. Or what about tanks mounting
> HELs? No reloads. Or DFFGs? maybe or maybe not reloads. Mass Drivers?
> You don't load the smaller MDCs by hand, so why the heck would you do
it
> with the bigger ones? I doubt it would work without a viable
autoloader.

The rotating bolt of the G11 was designed to create a different manner
of 
transporting ammo from a vertical magazine to a breech. It makes the 
weapon more compact overall but doesn't reduce the size of the mechanism

needed to transport the ammo. In a tank you are probably going to need 
the ability to transport and select multiple types of ammo. Your 
transport mechanism isn't going to get much smaller unless you can make 
servos that don't need tracks/raceways/bearings to operate. Modern 
Autoloaders are still the same size they were 50 years ago on the 5"
guns 
the USN used. Things have scaled down a little bit but not much. 

A self loading pistol from 1900 isn't much smaller than one of the more 
modern designs (based on caibre size). 100 years hasn't made a huge 
difference in this. 
=====================================================
Point taken. This alone might make CPR guns unviable in the long run.
=====================================================

> ** Well, from my limited experience, tanks don't fire that many rounds
> at one time before 1) dying or 2) ending the fight. But that's mostly
> simulation talking so I'm willing to here other evidence...

Are you kidding me? Yom Kippur mean anything to you?

=====================================================
My fault. I meant in any moderately even fight where tank on side A has
some
parity with tank on side B. I do not necessarily count Yom Kippur though
it
is a good case study. The Gulf I call a turkey shoot. In such a
scenario,
ammo will be in short supply. But if we had M1s clashing, one could fire
8
rounds reasonably quick, the other 4 rounds in the same time period with
the
same accuracy, I'd choose the one that could fire 8 rounds. It depends
on
your situation. 
=====================================================

> ** Dispense with the track. (an option). I think Grav drives would be
> solid state. They are supposedly (according to canon) common. Depot
> maintenance only probably - maybe some simple tuning. maybe not.
> ** Power pack? FGP. If you do that, you change fuel rods every....
five
> years? five months? not enough to worry about in some ways.

What about battle damage? Rough handling? Murphy?
=====================================================
How about me having my guy around to repair it as a tech rather than
dead
because he was exposing himself peeking over a hill and got sniped? I'm
not
saying there aren't situations where another guy is useful. But a lot of
battle damage probably can't be repaired by even 4 guys. By your
argument
(or that line of thought anyway), I'd ideally like a 20 man tank crew as
maintenance would be easier, there'd be more people to scout, etc. We
know
that isn't done for many reasons. The point is is the balance going to
shift
over the next few centuries? If I were a betting man, I'd put money on
it
moving somewhere... probably in favor of fewer guys in harms way. 
=====================================================

> ** 100% reliable? Wow. You want a gaurantee. I'll offer you that if
you
> convince me your human occupants that it replaced were 100% reliable.
> I'll give you as good or better performance of vision and AI systems
in
> 30-40 years, let alone 200. I may even be able to give you near 100%,
> which might be a LOT better than the humans could manage.

> ** Autoloaders may become irrelevant with HELs, with DFFGs, or with
some
> other weapon types. For others, they are a must. Only for CPR guns are
> they an issue and if we can't solve this in 200 years, then Henry Ford
> should have not bothered with mass production nor Thomas Edison with
> electricity because we're a bunch of clods.

Then, I'd rather have that Loader, stay around and do other things, a 
secondary gunner or something. The Swedish S tank kept the #3 guy around

as an alternate driver/radio operator.

=====================================================
Well, if you have enough weaponry to make a second gunner viable, rather
than as a backup, I don't think he's a loader anymore. I'm not saying
you
can't justify a 4 man crew in some aspect but having a man doing the job
of
shell chucking seems rather silly. 
=====================================================

> ** Agree. Or else that FGP must be so much more reliable and powerful
> than the IC that the trip is worth it.

If you can make it that way. I'll bet your grav drive system will have 
other things that need channging then. Field coils perhaps?

=====================================================
Possibly. Or maybe its like a big magnet repelling the ground. Ever do
much
service on a magnet? I dunno what shape this will take. It probably
isn't
going to happen (well, maybe) and so this is total speculation and we
can
PSB whatever we want. But tracks/cogs/road wheels are complex with a lot
of
moving parts. If you can reduce the part count, you probably increase
reliability and reduce maintenance.  

Thomas Barclay
Software UberMensch
xwave solutions
(613) 831-2018 x 3008