Re: [GZG] Subject: Re: What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?
From: Oerjan Ariander <orjan.ariander1@c...>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 23:53:11 +0200
Subject: Re: [GZG] Subject: Re: What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?
>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.
If you're talking about hovercraft: As long as you only move across very
smooth terrain that doesn't tear at the plenum chamber walls, maybe.
Hovercraft also drink far more fuel than similarly-protected wheeled or
tracked vehicles capable of carrying the same payload.
If you're talking about GEVs: While large parts of the SF community use
term "GEV" to mean "hovercraft", "Ground Effect Vehicle" is actually an
abbreviation of "Wing In Ground Effect vehicle" (WIGE) - ie. something
like an aircraft than a ground vehicle. I'd be very surprised if WIGEs
required less maintenance than wheeled or tracked vehicles :-/
Eli: *Light* hovercraft are less likely to trigger pressure mines than
other types of ground vehicles are, but they are just as vulnerable to
mines with tilt-rod, magnetic etc fuses. However, if you put armour on a
hovercraft its ground pressure rises quite rapidly, so by the time
put MBT-level armour on it it'll be about as likely to trigger a
mine as a light APC is. (And it won't be able to move over water or
soft surfaces either - a heavy hovercraft will sink...)
"Life is like a sewer.
What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
Gzg-l mailing list