| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Niels Bugge wrote:
| |
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 human, when
inserting intelligence in military units? AI are much better: It doesn’t
demand space, lifesupport or rest, is way faster and smaller, and do what
it’s told to without moral considerations...
Rockets are fine and is here to stay, but drones are the future. Still, you
need humans for humane stuff like peacekeeping and heart & mind missions,
but they’ll need heavy space, air and drone-support.
|
I agree with this part...
| |
When you add oceans and mountain to the equation as well as the need to
avoid enemy smartbombs by moving around or dodging, I think that that pretty
much sums up why tanks need to hover (and with beamweapons or rockets,
recoil wouldn’t be a problem).
|
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 elsethread said,
hover == higher == easier to hit == soft underbelly == easier to knock out
Tank TRANSPORTERs though... ??? Sure! Short range transporters could well use
hover tech to get from the local basing area to close in to the front. But
the tanks themselves I expect will be brought in by ship (with good air
cover) if there is time or C5A if there isn’t, to that basing area...
|
I think this would depend on the efficacy of the hover mechanism. Depending on
the technology involved, it could be faster then a tank with treads running on
the same sort of power source would be (there’s alot of mass in tank treads, and
therefore alot of inertia). Also, hover tanks should, in theory, be immune to
land mines, which would allow for faster overall advancement of a fighting line.
Theoretically, a hover tank could be made to maintain a distance from the ground
less than or equal to that occupied by the wheels on a normal tank, so that it
would not be higher in the air. Also, while I don’t think that oceans or
mountains make a compelling argument for hover tank desirabilty, rivers, and
bridge destruction do.
-Dan Rubin
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
