grav some more

Adrian said:

I think the answer to that one is going to be economics.  A small
tactical vehicle (say, a recce afv or a "jeep" or a tank) will cost a
lot less than a vehicle designed to drop a platoon, or a company, into
battle.  If your force is made up of just a few vastly capable but
enormously expensive multi-purpose vehicles, then losing just ONE is a
*big deal*.  And the roles they have to undertake are quite different.	

[Tomb] That depends. If I can develop an APC that can drop from orbit,
carry a decent amount of armour, mount a GMS capable of killing a tank
and a fusion gun capable of making infantry very nervous, I haven't got
a tank, a troop chopper, or an APC, I've got a little bit of it all. But
losing one is still only losing one combat vehicle and one squad of
guys. Expensive, but not terribly moreso than losing any individual
specialized unit. 

Direct fire support in a tactical environment calls for one set of
features.  Dropping a platoon from orbit calls for different features.
Combining the two gives you one helluva expensive fire support vehicle.
Be *much* less expensive, I imagine, to have large-ish transport-type
vehicles to get the fighting stuff to the surface, and then smaller
stuff for tactical use ON the surface.

[Tomb] Except for two things:
1) Large ship coming down - large target. (This is the all the eggs in
one basket syndrome)
2) Later mobility. After landing, Traveller grav-model vehicles can fly
around like slicks or snakes. So the infantry has a much higher mobility
level and redeployment capability. Without having to cluster back into a
transport. 

  Maybe your APCs and tanks can get to orbit if they need to in an
emergency, but will there be enough for everyone on the ground? 

[Tomb] In traveller model this is SoP. Think of the "room for everyone"
issue as being the same as moving a formation by helicopter today. Same
issue exists. 

 If you drop your APCs and Tanks from orbit, assuming that the air
defenses are not going to shoot them all down, then you need pretty
capable vehicles,

[Tomb] Or decoy and EW technology is good. The fleet covers me with
heavy EW, uses lightspeed weapons to destroy anyone that goes active to
get a fire control solution on my dropping tanks, and I drop piles of
cheap disposable decoys to draw fire thus reducing my casualty rates.
Hence the tank, while capable, is not outrageously so. 

 and certainly need really well trained crews.

[Tomb] First, any high tech professional force will be well trained.
Second, AIs can do a lot of this better than humans (definitely by
218x). 

  Your tank drivers would have to be trained equivalent to our attack
helocopter or fighter pilots - unless there are dramatic increases in
training systems and methods AND smart systems onboard to make the
vehicles easier to pilot (which is probable

[Tomb] Exactly. I picture a grav tank driver as a competent professional
who has a lot of expert-system backup. And isn't quite as elite as a
fighter or chopper pilot. He flies in a more robust platform (better
able to take hits, simpler propulsion system perhaps even). 

 - but the silliest extension of this idea is seen in that show "Space
Above and Beyond" where all the members of an elite infantry unit were
also all trained fighter pilots... or maybe it was all the pilots in a
squadron also happened to be elite infantry...).

[Tomb] Though I thought Vanson was cute, I have to say that the concept
of that show was utterly mentally vacant. It lived up to its name (Space
Abort and Begone). 

[Tomb} Free extra thought: Jon, comparing grav costs in DS2 vs tracked
isn't meaningful in this discussion. Why? GZG grav can't fly. It is just
glorified AC. If you had flying grav, you can imagine costing all tanks
as either VTOL or Aerospace frames, only with a better ability to carry
armour. So they'd be darned expensive.