|
|
 | | Re: Tanks or Power Armor
|
| (...) Another thought is maintainability and cost. Consider that WWII Germany was able to produce several tank destroyers for the cost of a single tank, simply because the expense of the turret went away. As the end of WWII approached and money (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Tanks or Power Armor
|
| (...) Those are all powerful advantages but I think that tanks are more efficient at providing an armored and enclosed area because they're closer to a spherical shape than a power suit, and because they get mass fraction advantages. Anecdotally: (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Tanks or Power Armor
|
| (...) I think so. Since a tank (I'm talking about real life MBTs, not hovertanks) is firmly situated on the ground, it is a more stable firing platform. Also, even if powersuits are eventually developed, I doubt that they will be able to carry the (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Tanks or Power Armor
|
| (...) I think tanks will still remain useful as siege weapons, spearheading assaults, and general heavy battle. Power armor might be very useful for surgical strikes, and urban warfare. But in an open field, or over long distance, I think tanks will (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space)
| | | | | Tanks or Power Armor
|
| Hello everyone. I was checking out (URL) Ryan Wood's Jade Empire Hong Hovertank post> and he mentions that we have seen little in ground combat vehicles other than (URL) power suit>. That got me thinking, when you have Power Suits available, should (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space, FTX)
| | | | | Re: On the recursive subdivision of two-dimensional food items
|
| (...) You play with LEGO bricks. You openly admit it. You even joined an online community to bask in the brickiness of it all. You've got the Geek gene. Now, your gene might be smaller and more selective than those of others here, but it still (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: On the recursive subdivision of two-dimensional food items
|
| (...) Recursively speaking. I saved this reply so I could enjoy it all over again. See, by ignoring this post, thus savoring the experience, I held off in replying so I could cherish the moment. Until I was ready to pop-stack. THEN, I look over and (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Attention all RSS geeks!
|
| (...) I've become convinced that Atom might be a better solution. If only because it has better mechanisms to ensure that entries are identified uniquely, and support for meta information about authors, etc. (...) If we're using RSS, using a custom (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.general, lugnet.fun.community, lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.org)
| | | | | Attention all RSS geeks!
|
| Call for technical participation in a proposal for LEGO enthusiast content sharing. BACKGROUND: I've been working on a project for a couple of months that extends the RSS spec to encompass envisioned needs of specific communities, specifically (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.general, lugnet.fun.community, lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.org, FTX) !!
| | | | | Re: On the recursive subdivision of two-dimensional food items
|
| (...) True. There's always the square equivalent where you cut into nine and remove the centre square. Sorry, back up. That's just too weird to contemplate. Cutting a slice of bread into ninths, not quarters? I mean, even the triangularists still (...) (20 years ago, 20-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
|
