more grav

Sayeth the Full-Metal Atkinson:

True, but MDCs are almost as good--their ammunition is
compact (an MDC/5 may be a 40-50mm system with high
muzzle velocities) and insensitive (read easy to
handle--not much danger of explosion for a DU slug
with steel bands).  

John

[Tomb] MDC burns ammo pretty darn fast relative to conventional weapons.

Yes, but there is still a world of difference between
an Intrepid grav tank and a Rampart.  Granted that at
TL15 the difference between a tank and a VTOL are
gone, the GZG-verse is not at TL 15.

[Tomb] I grant you. And I also thought you were talking generically
rather than game system dependent. 

> 2) I question your zero logistics PoV. You don't
> account for failures.

No, I said fuel.  Fuel is by far the most time- and
transport- consuming resource.	

[Tomb] Yes, you'd end up with a smaller logistics tail. But you'd still
have one. 

> The Apache has been shown as case in point to be
> only combat capable > about 50% of the time. Planes

Oddly enough, this number is a peacetime OR rate.  In
Desert Storm the OR rate was closer to 90%.

[Tomb] For how long? How sustainable? These numbers are all utterly
contestible, but I've heard about the damage the environment did to the
Apache (which had to fly low). That wasn't good. Plus something that'd
get you a downcheck in peacetime will let you fly in war, even though
your performance may be impaired. 

I'll still argue.  Specialization is necessary because
of how badly a tank is outclassed when trying to argue
with a fighter.  Or vice versa.  What might be common
would be a preponderance of the "VTOL" style vehicle,
which has some air-to-air capability and some good
tank-hunting capability.

[Tomb] Yep. You'll argue and then your GAO will say "Nice argument but
you still get X bucks. You still have to cover Y planets." And you'll
still be stuck buying multi-role kit unless you are way rich. 

Plus in the right tech period, a tank is _not_ outclassed by a fighter.
With a human aboard, a fighter will move finite speeds, once I add a
lightspeed weapon with horizon attack range (some of the Traveller
systems) to my tank and firecontrol to match, your fighter is just plain
dead when it crosses the horizon. And my tank has enough armour to give
me some chance of shrugging off your counterstrike. This is a highly
debatable instance and hinges on the details of the tech available at
both ends. Given high enough tech, the fighter is pointless. 

> 5) Expense will limit how many forces you can field.

Grav isn't that expensive--especially when expressed
as a fraction of total vehicle cost.  

[Tomb] Sorry, I should have said "in a world where grav isn't to
predominate". I agree with your comments about the GZGverse though you
had indicated you were talking generically rather than specifically
about the GZGverse.

That's not a large enough numerical advantage to make
a difference against the sort of dislocating effects
grav can produce.

[Tomb] Wholly concur. 

Grav gives several times the bang
for the buck at no increase in shipping space. 

[Tomb] Which is why my high-tech strike forces use it fairly
extensively. Just be nice to have more aerodynamic grav tank models. 

On another note: 

If I can fly a plane in a flight sim (most modern gamers can), then I
can probably fly a grav tank. Avionics, on-board expert systems, etc.
can make it so you don't need any more skill than a truck driver to
operate a flying tank. And if those key systems fail, its gonna drop
like a brick anyway.... ;)