Re: [GZG] Subject: Re: What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:48:21 +0000
Subject: Re: [GZG] Subject: Re: What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?
Gzg-l mailing list
You make some good points all around.
I think one thing to keep in mind with modular vehicles is that future
technology might balance out the weight issues. I also do not think that
modular can mean many different things. There are varying degrees of
modularity. In the realm if sci-fi, this could mean a lot of things and
still be mostly hard science fiction.
You comment on weight and transport is one of the most compelling
points. In a sci-fi setting where we are transporting vehicles across
the stars, ever ounce is going to count unless your universe has reduced
space travel to its most casual level, but mosto f the GZG settings I
see talked about, do not. In these settings, lighter, more compact
vehicles would be the norm in colonial forces. Something along the lines
of the Stryker make much more sense as a colonial weapons platform.
A vehicle like this uses a wheeled chassis making it easier to maintain
on backwater worlds. I can potentially pack big guns in a small package.
The common components between it and the other vehicles in its family
aid in maintenance and supply.
Even taking into account futuristic materials, MBTs are likely going to
be used sparingly in a colonial space setting and likely reserved for
homeworld and major colony forces where they can be produced on site.
You may have them available for trans-stellar transport, but this would
be used sparingly as effective MBTs are likely to still pose a supply
issue even if they are fuelled by amazing fusion bottles with
operational lives of a thousand years or whatever.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Oerjan Ariander <email@example.com>
> Michael Blair wrote:
> >Same chassis and the same mechanical spares but not
> >necessarily the armour. Particularly now as modular armour seems to
> >thing -
> Like I wrote in the previous post, modular MBT armour results in a
> heavy vehicle. With integrated armour the armour carries its own
> well as most of the weight of the vehicle's turret etc.; with modular
> armour the unarmoured chassis has to provide all of the structural
> integrity to carry both the heavy armour *and* everything else.
> >but I quite agree, an SPG has no need of serious levels of armour
> >unless it is an assault gun and they have rather gone out of favour
> >WW II
> Out of favour? The Stryker MGS is essentially a lightly-armoured
> >Incidentally is there a place for an AFV in FISH?
> Not that much. When you drive your AFVs into houses, they tend to drop
> into the cellar and get stuck :-p
> (FISH = Fighting In Someone's House; FIBUA = Fighting In Built-Up
> Last I saw these terms defined terms they weren't entirely identical -
> main difference is that FIBUA also includes fighting *between* houses
> rather than just *inside* them )
> >Weight is a very telling argument. Are modern MBTs too big?
> Depends entirely on what you want them to do. If you want to transport
> them, or drive them over non-reinforced road bridges, then at least
> western types are awkwardly big; if you want them to survive being
> by one another it is more like the eastern types being a bit too small
> >Oddly there was an SPG conversion for old tank chassis touted for a
> >replace the turret with a bigger, boxier turret with an artillery
> >Royal Ordnance 155mm I think). I remember thinking your point about
> >the chassis
> >is armoured which is just excess weight for an SPG and seemingly
> >thought the same as no one bought it!
> Not just weight IIRC. If you're thinking of the same project I am the
> problem was that the tank chassis were pretty much worn out, and
> cost rather more money to operate than new-built hulls would.
> "Life is like a sewer.
> What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
> Gzg-l mailing list