|
|
 | | 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)
|
|
