To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.spaceOpen lugnet.space in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Space / 35911
35910  |  35912
Subject: 
Re: Tanks or Power Armor
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space
Date: 
Fri, 27 Aug 2004 03:38:09 GMT
Viewed: 
221 times
  
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 range with a missile or smart bomb. Aren’t Tomohawks, at about $7 million per shot, the most expensive missile we’ve got? Aren’t main battle tanks more expensive than that? If you use a big enough missile, there’s no way a tank can survive a hit.

Anti-missile technology is an option, but I think you get back to the basic truth that it’s way easier to throw a spear than to catch one. The Navy has batteries of mini-guns on their ships that they shoot at incoming missiles (called CWS for “close-in weapon system”, pronounced “sea-whiz”--I’m not kidding), but the Navy guy I know never felt much safer because of them.

I think the Pentagon is not planning a successor to the Abrams, because it’s just too big a target. The escalation starts by bringing a sword to a hand-to-hand combat. Then you need armor to shield yourself from your opponent’s sword, then you need bigger, heavier weapons to penetrate the other guy’s armor. You alternate increasing the amount of your armor and increasing the power of your weapons until you have a massive tank or mech that can barely move and that presents an enormous target.

Step one in the process of killing tanks (or mechs for that matter) is to establish air superiority. After that, your ground attack aircraft can pick them off with impunity. Reminds me of the old joke that the difference between aerospace engineers and civil engineers is that one designs weapons and the other designs targets.

All that notwithstanding, I’ll still build mechs because I think they’re sweeeeeeet.



Message has 3 Replies:
  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
 
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
 
(...) A mecha would have a very hard time getting close enough to make hand-to-hand relevant. A M1A1's turret can do a 360 and stop on a dime from a dead start in 1 second. It's not the most comfortable thing to do for the crew inside but it does (...) (20 years ago, 28-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space, FTX)

Message is in Reply To:
  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)  

50 Messages in This Thread:






















Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR