|
|
 | | Re: Tanks or Power Armor
|
| (...) I agree with this part... (...) I am assuming that a tank would not go from its rear area yard/base (on another continent) to the combat zone under its own power, even a hovertank. So I guess I don't see why tanks need to hover. As someone (...) (20 years ago, 27-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Tanks or Power Armor
|
| I'm supprised about this too, but from a little different standingpoint: I don't think humans have any future on the battlefield, because everything will happen so much faster than today: Why should you use something as demanding and confused as a (...) (20 years ago, 27-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Tanks or Power Armor
|
| While the cost of precision guided munitions is indeed going down (wittness the the USN's new "Tactical Tomahawk" with a price tag of around $575,000, about half the cost of current Toms) using cost efficiency to justify the use of PGM as a tank (...) (20 years ago, 27-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Tanks or Power Armor
|
| (...) Possibly. Or we could even develop energy-based weapons. We might also find that even if we can develop the technology required to make hovertanks a feasible concept that it's still more economic and reliable to go with the more mundane (...) (20 years ago, 27-Aug-04, to lugnet.build.mecha, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Tanks or Power Armor
|
| I'm surprised no one so far has answered the "tanks or power armor" question by saying, "missiles!" As information, positioning, sensor, and guidance technology continues to improve, it gets easier and easier to hit a ground-based target from long (...) (20 years ago, 27-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Tanks or Power Armor
|
| (...) That's more or less what I was saying. Any creation, no matter how implausible or unrealistic, must have a certain internal consistency as it were. There will be rules that apply to that creation to make it 'real' enough, whatever that may (...) (20 years ago, 27-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Tanks or Power Armor
|
| (...) Fair enough, but we do all make certain levels of "realism" necessary in our creations, be they space suits for all little spacemen, enclosed cockpits, engines, or even making sure there are wings on our Galaxy Enforcers. :D (...) Well, fair (...) (20 years ago, 27-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Tanks or Power Armor
|
| (...) That's the idea behind gauss weapons--railguns and the like. Ostensibly they also make ammunition lighter because they do away with the propellant charge, and that loss of weight is made up for in the higher velocity of the projectile. (...) (20 years ago, 27-Aug-04, to lugnet.build.mecha, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Tanks or Power Armor
|
| (...) Of course you are correct. Plausible or not though, they are much more fun to build out of lego. I've never felt the need for realism to dictate any limitations on my models, but that's just the .SPACE in me :) (...) If realism, or even (...) (20 years ago, 26-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Tanks or Power Armor
|
| (...) I suspect that if we develop a technology that can manipulate gravity enough to hold a tank off the ground (I really don't think the fan and skirt design would be practical in battle), then surely it would also be able to absorb or counteract (...) (20 years ago, 26-Aug-04, to lugnet.build.mecha, FTX)
|
|
