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

Brian Bilderback 

>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.

The larger GMSs are able to carry warheads with better stand-off -
self-forging long-rods and similar, which detonate outside the APFC's
range. Unfortunately those warheads need to be quite big in order to
have any real penetrative power, so the smaller weapons need to come
close to the target - a meter or so at most, preferrably direct
contact.

'Course, this only describes the developments up 'til about 2050, not
to 2183 <g>

>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),

However, today's vehicles are also considerably weaker on the top than
on the *sides*, and that is no longer true in DSII.

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