Re: [SG2] weapons

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

I will defer to Mr. Atkinson's comments regarding the
aerlier portion of this post.

> > 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.

I SAW your comments, you'll notice my comments were in
REPLY to them.	The question I have is this:  If the
enemy has sophisticated EMP weaponry, why the hell are
they sporting low-tech RR's?  

You missed my point -- if you're just going to say
"EMP", wave your hand, and that's the end of all
arguements for High-tech, you're not really addressing
the issue of future RR/LVC Vs. PDs on their own
merits.

Furthermore, you've painted yourself into a corner. 
By presenting these weapons as the equivalent of the
PIAT in your example, you've put them forward as the
low tech, low cost alternative to higher velocity
weapons and GMS's.  But as soon as obstacles to their
effectiveness are presented, eg PDS/ADS, the solution
to the problem has been to add high tech, high cost
features to the weapon, eg ECM chips, seeker/guidance
systems, sandcasters, or support the weapon with high
tech combined arms (popping an ECM).  It's not really
a low tech/low cost alternative any more, then, is it?

=====
"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