Re: GMS vs Infantry

Kr'rt wrote:

> Goofy Armchair General Thought of the Day:
>
> Assumptions:
> a. It is the future
> b. Weapon development will continue
> c. Some weapons systems can and will get more complex
> d. Explosives do not necessarily have to be solid masses, they can be
> liquid in an inverted-cone-shaped plastic container.
> e. The geometry of said container can be altered by widening the
> "cone" on the fly.

And we're also making the assumption that a GMS is HE based. Weber's
version of GMS in the Starfire series of books (i.e. Insurrection) comes
to mind. They are ultra hyper velocity penetrators. (almost like they
make
micro warp jumps IIRC)

>
> Idea:
> So, to rationalize the use of a GMS against Infantry, Heavy Weapons
> firing a big(ie Not Small Arms) warhead can have "Dial-a-Welt" power
> settings.  You flick a switch and HEAT GMS rounds can act as HEAP,
> though much less effective than a round designed for AP use. (Beehive,
> Flechette, Scattergun :)  )
>

Good idea, but probably resource intensive and expensive, even rated on
a
sliding scale of a future economy.