Re: [SG2] weapons

> > The best anti-tank weapon is whatever you have when
> > you need it.
>
> If the Anti-tank weapon you have won't Anti- a tank
> without a lot of luck and skill and bravery and enemy
> stupidity, it's barely better than no ATW at all.

Dropping a PIAT bomb on top of an M1 turret beats trying to close
assault an
M1...  You don't have to isolate the M1 from other M1's and supporting
infantry to pull it off without getting butchered...  Just one of
infinately
many examples...  Besides, most armored vehicles aren't as tough to kill
as
the front of a tank.  How many Bradley's are in the US Army?  What is
the
ratio of Fuchs and Marders to tanks in the German Army...

> > 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 again, if the Do you Make doesn't Do the Job,
> Don't bother doing it at all.

Okay, you just volunteered for the close assault section against that
tank...

> > I disagree here.  Look at Iraq. There is a high
> > tech force versus a low
> > tech force,
>
> Again, you've made a leap assuming that the difference
> in tech levels between the weapons used by Iraq and
> the US today are the same as the difference betwween a
> HVC/RR and the cutting edge defenses available in the
> future.  I'd argue that the level of parity between
> the US and the Iraqui guerillas today is, although
> widely disparate, far closer to equal than the
> difference between a RR and a PDS- protected tank or
> PA trooper of the future.

If you use current tech RR against a future tech tank, you are right. 
If
you use a future tech RR against a future tech tank, you are wrong. 
Think
directed microwave radiation warhead that detnates just outside of PDS
range.	There goes the electronics of the PDS if your lucky.  If not,
the
fire control of the tank is fried also...  And maybe the electronics of
the
powerplant as well...

> 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.
>
> I would not argue with you there, but you're
> digressing wildly.  The discussion is about the
> tactical viability of a given weapon on a future
> battlefield, not the strategic nature of that
> battlefield.

The strategic nature of a conflict dictates which weapons will be most
useful.  In other words what equipment you should produce and train your
troops to use.	It is very relavent...

> > 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...
>
> Ummm.... in which case you've rendered it a Low-on-Low
> conflict, and I believe I was the one who mentioned
> them to begin with.  But you have not shown how, under
> normal operaations, a RR/HVC can hope to defeat a PDS
> on a more-than-occasional basis, or even more often
> than anecdotally.

See above comment on direct microwave radiation weapons.

ias