Re: Musings

  Tanks are pretty sexy.  :)  Your musings, as someone pointed out, are
planned for the next generation tank.  I think on the last TLC show I
saw,
the next US main battle tank will have little or no turret, much lower
profile etc. etc. just as you said.  I believe one of the primary design
goals though was also to require less people inside.  I think the new
design requires only 2 people.	I don't know the timeframe, but I'd
figure
less than 20 years for them to be in service.  But what about after
that?
  Knights and horsemen, the earliest form of 'tank' dissapeared from the
battlefield when the power of the weapons available to men on foot made
them too expensive and too inneffective.  New metals and ceramics and
more
importantly, new propulsion systems that could support them, allowed
them
to once again take the field.  How long before this happens again and
tanks are no longer useful?  Maybe not too long with an infantryman's
ability to paint a laser on the side of the tank and a missle launched
from 5 miles away.
  Will new materials and new propulsion allow tanks to make another
appearence?  Well, with anti-grav, the propulsion system is definetly
there.	Armor on tanks is already becoming 'active', and I think it
reasonable that adding more slabs of iron on to the side of a tank won't
cut it.  Some form of active defence, or at least a 'powered' defence
would form the armor.  How many people as the crew this time...  I'd
argue
0.  :)

  Currently stealth seems to be the popular method for survival on the
battlefield, although the new jet fighters still have a lot of their
design dedicated to speed an maneuverability, I think the A10s are being
retired as their durability isn't considered the way to protect the
soldier who crews it. Who can say what will be useful in the future.
Speed, stealth or increadible defences.  If (when) a breakthrough in
fusion or other energy source allows massive amounts of energy to
something as small as a tank, the possibilities are... open.

On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Brian Bilderback wrote:

> I was daydreaming at work today, musing about tanks and the guns in DS
II.  
> This is why I'm not a manager yet.
> 
> Anyway, it got me thinking about the artwork and figures I've seen out

> there, by almost all the game companies, even our most highly exalted
one, 
> and began to wonder about how weapons design will affect overall tank
design 
> in the future.
> 
> Specifically, I began contemplating the future of the traditional 
> box-on-a-box turret, and how this design would be affected by specific

> systems.
> 
> This was all heavily influenced by my infatuation with MDC's.  Even
before I 
> found DSII, when I played that MegaIndustry Game of Walking Combat
Machines 
> that Wannabe Anime, I had a fascination with the potential of 
> supermagnetic-driven rail type weapons.
> 
> This resulted in me wondering how different a MDC would look as
compared to 
> a HVC or HKP. For starters, the breech would be radically different,
and 
> smaller. There would be no need for a serious recoil buffer. Since
there's 
> no propellant, there's no need for a firing pin, just a simple
electrical 
> switch. In general, since a gauss slug is pulled, not pushed, the
space 
> taken up by the part of the gun that stays inside the turret would 
> drastically decrease. There's no need for an ejection port, merely a
feed 
> for the slugs. And since it fires solid slugs, dense and much more
compact 
> than a propellant driven round, and since there is no propellant or
casing 
> involved, the space taken up by ammo storage and protection would be
either 
> A: Decreased or B: more efficiently used.  Furthermore, since ammo
type 
> would probably be uniform, or at most, quite easy to automatically
load, the 
> loader's position could possibly be eliminated.
> 
> This got me thinking that the future turret could be much more loow
slung, 
> perhaps round and sunken into the hull, with the gun protruding from
it 
> closer to the deck.  Perhaps the problem of gun depression could be
offset 
> by hydraulic systems, like in the Swedish S-Tank.  In general, this
would 
> lower the profile of the tank yet still leave it with a
fully-traversing 
> turret.
> 
> Then I realized that the HEL lends itself to this advantage even more.
> 
> At first this was merely an exercise in esthetics, trying to draw a
cooler 
> looking tank. But then, inevitably, like any true gamer, I began to
wonder 
> about it's application to game mechanics. Here's what I came up with
as 
> tentative suggestions:
> 
> 1. Since a lowered turret makes the tank inherently more stealthy,
make 
> stealth levels cheaper for any vehicle whose largest weapon is a MDC
or HEL. 
> (Perhaps 18 x Vehicle Size Class per LEVEL)
> 
> 2. Since HVC's, HKP's, and DFFG's use ammo that contain propellant, it
seems 
> reasonable that they run a higher risk of destruction from a hit to
the ammo 
> bay. This can be simulated by the following rule:
> 
>      When a vehicle carrying a DFFG, HKP, or HVC is hit and the
attacker 
> does not destroy it but either A: draws a Systems Down - Target chit
or B: 
> draws enough valid chits to Damage the target, replace the chits and
redraw 
> the same number of chits. Ignore any result except a BOOM chit or
another 
> Systems Down - Target. If either of these is drawn in the second draw,
the 
> vehicle is knocked out by a hit to it's ammo bay. If not, the results
of the 
> initial draw stand.
> 
> Just some ideas. What do you think?
> 
> Brian B
> 
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>