Re: [GZG] Subject: Re: What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 23:23:39 +0000
Subject: Re: [GZG] Subject: Re: What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?
Gzg-l mailing list
was talking about the mammoth hovercraft that we use today. I realise
there is not absolute proof against damage in war and countermeasures
and attack mothods dance a whirly gig of a dance around one another.
I would say that you are likely to see all sorts of wacky anti-vehicle
charges coming about. One that works against anything is really the
sonic-triggerered, projected penetrating mines. As long as your vehicle
makes noise, you can have a mine detect it. And if it's projecting its
damage, your drive system doesn't matter much.
Another option is to reduce your mines to simply being sensor elements
for some remotely-positioned weapon with a good range. You could set up
a box of ATGMs linked to sensor mines that "call in" shots from the
launcher when they are triggered. The poor schmucks in the vehicles
don't even no they've triggered anything until their prozximity alert is
anouncing an incoming missile or missiles.
Sooooo many toys,
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Oerjan Ariander <email@example.com>
> Adrian1 wrote:
> >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
> smooth terrain that doesn't tear at the plenum chamber walls, maybe.
> Hovercraft also drink far more fuel than similarly-protected wheeled
> tracked vehicles capable of carrying the same payload.
> If you're talking about GEVs: While large parts of the SF community
> term "GEV" to mean "hovercraft", "Ground Effect Vehicle" is actually
> 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
> 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