RE: PDS vs. IAVR/LAW/SMAW/etc.

You'd think that a PDS that far in the future would be capable of enough

"Smarts" to detect both kinds of threats, from IAVR's AND from GMS'. 
Thus, 
PDS' should be able, in game terms, to defend against IAVR's as well as 
against GMS'.  As for APFC's defending against IAVR's, I suppose the
only 
reson they don't might have to do with the charges not being quite as 
forceful as the reactive armor charges, and thus not being able to
damage 
the larger GMS warheads, but even this arguement has it's weaknesses.

Your post brings up another interesting point, however.  If future tanks
are 
still weaker on top than on the front (as is assumed in the game), why 
aren't the GMS' in the game all top-targeting, thus having their damage 
resolved against top/side level armor class, regardless of the direction

from which they come?

Brian B

----Original Message Follows----
From: "Bell, Brian K" <Brian_Bell@dscc.dla.mil>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: "'gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU'" <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: RE: PDS vs. IAVR/LAW/SMAW/etc.
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:45:12 -0500

I believe that the reason that PDFCs attack IVAR's and PDS attack GMS is
two-fold.
1) Different sensors/fire control systems. PDFC's probably detect
high-speed
movement toward the vechicle (bullets, grenades, IVARs). PDS is probably
activated by radar, lasers, and other active ranging/designating
sources.
2) Area of coverage. PDFC's primarily protect the front, back, and sides
of
the vehicle. PDS primarily look for targets that are more elevated
(trying
for the top armor).

-----
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net
-----

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com