Re: [SG2] weapons

--- Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:

> A PIAT could screw up a Modern IFV quite handily in
> spite of it's 
> aged design. 

Granted.  But just because it COULD doeesn't mean it
would be useful in that role except uder specific
circumstances.	That renders it functionally useless. 

However, even  if we do grant the PIAT some usefulness
today, I'm still waiting to hear compelling evidence
for the logic extrapolation from the above statement
to the effectiveness of low velocity weapons in the
future.

I'm sure there will be some
> interesting, large caliber, 
> but low velicity RR's in the future for armies that
> don't have lots 
> of tech.

And I'm just as sure that J.A. was correct in his
assertion that they'll be useless, at least for the
most part and most certainly against what will at that
time cutting edge technology, and probably even
against that era's standard tech.  I can see it's
usefulness only in Low-on-Low conflicts.

 You don't need sacrificial Guidance with a
> RR like you do 
> with a GMS/L or H.

Again, I'm convinced that at that point, PDS will be
more than capable of engaging any projectile moving at
low velocity on a ballistic trajectory.  Maybe SG
and/or DS doesn't reflect that, but they should.  Of
course, if anyone can explain why this assertion is
incorrect (I'd be especially interested to hear OO's
opinion on this point, for obvious reasons), I'm
alweays willing to rethink my position.

=====
"Teach a man to make fire, and he will be warm for a day.  Set a man on
fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life."   -- John A.
Hrastar

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree