Re: [GZG] What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?

One thing I notice here is an assumption that when using the MBT chassis
that the same amount of armor will be used. You could use the same drive
train and general hull but lesson or increase armor to fit the role that
the
vehicle will fill. This of course is not full standardization, but it
would
greatly reduce the more prevalent supply issues which are drive systems
and
frame.

No you have APCs, SPGs, and MBTs that can swap road wheels and drive
components. SPGs can trade off armor for other systems, perhaps
lightening
the load of armor to improve mobility. Your APCs could be armored up to
the
standards of the MBTs or they could carry a lighter armor load and then
trade that off for better mobility. 

Heck, if you are going futuristic enough, you could be looking at a
modular
armor system that allows you to layer on more armor onto you APCs  SPGs
to
better fit their mission role. If you are going to send your APCs into a
smaller battle zone where they do not need a lot of fast cross country
capability, then you can up-armor them to allow them better
survivability in
close quarters. Your SPGs could have armor upped when they are to be
used
against enemies with more considerable air power or counter battery
capabilities. However, if they are being used against a force with
limits
air capabilities and/or counter-battery ability, then you can leave them
light and fast.

This is of course rampant theory but if you look back to WW2 and the
German
E-series concept (which never took off) and some of what the allies did
with
their gear, it's a premise that can and has worked.

>From a wargaming standpoint, it can lessen the need for a huge variety
of
miniatures as the same APC or SPG models can be used with little or no
visible modification. Heck if you were producing a line of minis, this
could
even cut down on production as you only need to cast one line of chassis
and
a bunch of accessories.

-Eli   

-----Original Message-----
From: gzg-l-bounces@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
[mailto:gzg-l-bounces@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Don M
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 3:41 PM
To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [GZG] What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?

Interestingly I have seen the point made several times by
people who should know what they are talking about (Jane's Armour 2000 I
think) that
it would be a very good idea for an army to standardise its tracked
vehicles
on
their standard tank chassis and running gear for the MBT, SPGs, APC and
so
on.
This would make the tank considerably cheaper and enormously simplify
maintenance and spares. The APC would be larger than the current ones
allowing
either more men to be carried or much better protection and it would
move at
the same rate as the MBT which is apparently a good thing.

***There is a good reasons why most countries don't use MBT chassis for
APCs or artillery etc. One is weight, MBT are heavy but you must have
them,
by the same token you don't want every thing that heavy or you couldn't
transport
it all to where you need it. The second factor is maintenance, MBTs are
a
maintenance night mare, again due to the weight, ware and tare are far
worse
for tanks than lighter tracked vehicles. Tanks also burn allot more
fuel.

Don

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l