Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: was Re: [SG3]: What if?

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lThe
original analogy was trying to extrapolate ground weapons and infantry
into the future - how would future technology change the arms race in
terms
of range, LOS etc.  Are ranges of 1000 m reasonable for a hand-held
weapon?
Are LOS ranges of 100-500m reasonable? or will technologies such as
hyper-velocity projectiles combined with x-ray sensors make anything
less
than 10 feet of granite ineffective as protection or camoflauge?  Will
there
be an arms race in detection and counter-measures - chamelon clothing
(IR/Visible) vs. new detectors?  Will weapons be automated? Will UAV's
for
individual soldiers be common?

The WWI to modern aircraft analogy was to show how just 90 years can
completely change the aspect of warfare.  If infantry weapons proceed at
the
same rate, what would infantry weapons look like in future, or would
there
even be infantry?

In the future, would a colonial army armed with the equivalent of
today's
weapons stand a chance against the top-notch armies of the future?

-Binhan

On 2/7/08, Allan Goodall <agoodall@hyperbear.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 7, 2008 1:23 PM, Binhan Lin <binhan.lin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Airspeeds of a WWI aircraft are well into the range of modern
> helicopters,
> > and the general consensus is that helicopters are easy pickings for
> modern
> > jets.
>
> And this all begs a question: what's the tactical or strategic reason
> for engaging the WWI aircraft in the first place?
>
> The biplane can't do a thing, essentially, to the Raptor. The Raptor
> can drop anti-personnel and anti-fortification munitions on troops
> with pinpoint accuracy, at least compared to WWI artillery standards.
>
>