Re: [SG2] weapons

> > 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.

The best anti-tank weapon is whatever you have when you need it.  If
you're
lucky it will be good enough to do the job without the enemy cooperating
too
much...  I bet there are a lot of Palastinians wishing they had
PIAT's...
I'm sure Allah would forgive them for the sin they would have to commit
to
cock the PIAT...  A joke based on several descriptions I've read about
trying to cock a PIAT while prone.  Apparently it looks you're making
love
to the PIAT...

> 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.

They're cheap and easy to manufacture compared to missiles, if you can
afford better, you get better; if you can't, you make do...

> 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.

I disagree here.  Look at Iraq.  There is a high tech force versus a low
tech force, and while the high tech force can go anywhere they want,
they
have yet even come close to breaking the will of the enemy to resist. 
While
the US "controls" Iraq, the US has yet to make Iraq economically vaible,
hence guerrilla warfare could be very useful in war in the future.  The
idea
here is that conquered planets fight on to tie down enemy forces and
prevent
captured resources from being useful to the enemy.  The low tech weapons
you
dislike are ideal for these purposes...

> 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.

Unless they sub-orbitally detonate a high yield designer nuke and bath
the
entire hemisphere in EMP; then everybody will be low tech...  More
Thrust
had EMP missiles...

ias