Re: [SG2] weapons

--- "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@sprintmail.com> wrote:

> Sea skimmers don't fly nearly as close to the
> surface as most people think.
> Ground skimmers aren't going to fly that close to
> the ground either.  Why?
> It really stinks when your ground hugging missile
> plows through a bush or
> smacks tree branch and goes carening out of control
> because of it...

So let me get this straight.... we're talking about a
future in which RR rounds will have ECM chips,
sandcasters, etc., but GMS won't have an improved
ability to avoid terrain?  Now who's tailoring the
technological advances to fit their argument?

> I have never heard anyone say that the front of the
> M1 wasn't relatively
> proof against the L7 gun, however, no one has said
> this about the side of
> the M1.  Note that a 105mm RR has a slightly more
> effective HEAT warhead
> then the L7 gun (L7 gun is the most common 105mm
> tank gun mounted on M60's,
> M1's, Lepord 1's, etc...).  Boom chits wreck and
> should have never been
> included.  The represent the one in a thousand hits
> (or more likely one in
> ten thousand), but they happen much more often then
> one in a thousand.  

Two things:  
1.  If you're going to use an incident as an example
to support your arguement, stick with the details of
that incident.	As OO mentioned, the shot that killed
the M1 in Iraq was a very rare hit in terms of where
it hit.
2.  Again, any use of modern weapons to support these
arguements falls short because it fails to account for
changes in available technology.

> > Isn't that
> > > rather inconsistent to assume that tanks are
> going
> > > to improve over the next
> > > 180 years, but that HEAT warheads won't???

> I did not put words into his mouth.  He made an
> assumpition that's patently
> false and I called him on it.  

You said above "Isn't that rather inconsistent to
assume that tanks are going to improve over the next
180 years, but that HEAT warheads won't???"

If you can show me a direct quote where John said,
"HEAT warheads won't improve over the next 180 years,"
 or words to that effect, I will retract my arguement
and apologize. Otherwise, you DID put words in his
mouth.

Is there room for
> tanks to improve over the
> next 160 years?  Yes.  Is there room for HEAT
> warheads to improve over the
> next 160 years?  Yes.  Which will have the
> advantage?  Anyone who claims to
> know is a B.S. artist.

Noone claims to know, but we all have strong opinions,
otherwise this wouldn't be a thread.  But we can
definitely base our opinions on logic and the evidence
we CAN apply.
 
 
> An RR is more then an IAVR and less then a GMS...

In terms of game effects, a RR is an oversized IAVR,
and probably damned easy to defend against.

=====
"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