Re: [GZG] Gzg-l Digest, Vol 35, Issue 9

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lA tank has mass
and serious stabilization mechanics working for it too.

I'm with John on this one 

Michael Brown
mwsaber6@msn.com

From: Indy 
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 1:20 PM
To: gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu 
Subject: Re: [GZG] Gzg-l Digest, Vol 35, Issue 9

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 3:14 PM, John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com>
wrote:

  On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:30 PM, 
<gzg-l-request@mail.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:

  > So are takeing into consideration say smartgun links, eg point the
dot in the helmet hud at the target.
  > I dont think you can say that because you cant run and fire with
current weapons doesnt mean you
  > wont be able too with future personnel weapons.
  >
  > How much kick would a laser or emp gun have.

  You've never actually fired a weapon, have you?

  When you run, you are moving up and down--and tiny variations in the
  position of the muzzle translate into large deviations in the position
  of the bullet 100m downrange.

  You can run and fire with lots of weapons, but you aren't going to hit
  shit except by accident.

He's talking future weapons, not contemporary. Take into consideration
the evolution of the tank. When it was first fielded, shooting while
moving accuracy was pretty dismal. Nowadays, shooting while moving is
pretty realistic. Who's to say in 50-100 years hence infantrymen won't
have the same or similar technological capabilities? We're not trying to
model combat in 2020 here (well, okay, maybe some are :-D ). 

Mk

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l