Re: [GZG] Subject: Re: What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?
From: Phillip Atcliffe <atcliffe@n...>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:21:58 +0100
Subject: Re: [GZG] Subject: Re: What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?
Gzg-l mailing list
> email@example.com wrote:
>> 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 most of 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.
> 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.
Maybe, maybe not. Okay, no wheels, tracks or suspension (or is there?),
BUT... you still need some kind of supports for when the thing is shut
down, and like helos, it could help if a vehicle can be pushed around by
hand (assuming it's light enough for that), which means wheels of some
sort, even if unpowered -- in fact, a lot of helicopter design features
could be relevant. Shafting from engine(s) to fans, for instance,
including possible multiply-redundant arrangements to allow for engine
failure and/or combat damage.
The point is that, depending on the technology and PSB you assume, a GEV
AFV could be lighter and simpler than conventional tracks or wheeled
vehicles, or equally complex, just in a different way, or even more
complicated, but that is counterbalanced by the increase in mobility
that it gives and the resulting tactical applications --or not. You pays
your money and takes your choice -- or the battle you are to fight does.