 | | 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 (...) (22 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 (...) (22 years ago, 27-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space, 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 (...) (22 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 (...) (22 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 (...) (22 years ago, 27-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space, FTX)
|
|
