Re: [GZG] Subject: Re: What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?
From: Adrian1 <al.ll@t...>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:03:18 +0100
Subject: Re: [GZG] Subject: Re: What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?
> 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
I know little if anything about mechanics but aren't hovercraft/GEVs
less complicated than wheeled tracked vehicles. WIth no need to
replace wheels/tracks or broken suspension, etc.
> 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.
Gzg-l mailing list