> From: [email removed] (Steve Higginbotham)
> Subject: (3632) more striker still...
>
> > It is bad from the point of view of the game: Tactics is not
> >encouraged, just a slugfest. The half-armour vs pinpoint is a hack as
> >you can pinpoint all you like if it as 500mm all around, it will still
> >have 500mm all around.
>
> As I said earlier, even with 500mm armour all around, some things HAVE
> to be exposed. If the muzzle of your weapon were under armour, it would
> not be functional.
The system as it stands today does not allow this sort of thing. Pinpoint
does *not* fit the description, because there are some things that can be
protected by full armour that can be pinpointed for half armour (like the
power plant) and there are some things that *isn't* protected by *any*
armour and yet pinpoint protects them with 0.5*full armour (like some sensors
and some weapons).
> Likewise sensors. If your sensors can penetrate
> armour, then a weapon could be built to use that frequency lasered, and
> ruin you.
Like densitometers? Graviton lasers? Where is the muzzle on a meason-gun
tank by the way?
> No, your opinion is an artifact of your prejudices. As any fighter
> pilot will tell you, a plane has no side which faces the "primary
> danger".
This is why the A10 cockpit is armed from below and not from above?
Ok, both I and the USAF is painfully aware that the A10 is not a fighter:)
But it is an aircraft.
> Grav tanks fly, usually quickly. They are exposed to starship
> fire from orbit. THERE IS NO FACE WHICH CAN BE POINTED TO AS THE
> PRIMARY THREAT ZONE!
There is no need to shout but there is high-threat and low-threat directions
even for gravtanks: Examine the sensor-range and weapons range of a typical
(HiEnergy+Laser) armed gravtank. Examine then the thickness of the regime in
which they are *mostly* designed to work: During the planetary invasion
discussion it was discovered that most Grav-tanks will operate at NOE or
low altitude to avoid hostile attention from the opposing fleet.
Compare this altitude band with the range on which they can encounter enemy
grav-tanks: tens or hundreds of kilometers, and the result will be that
they move in a 'pancake' a few hundred meters thick and one hundred kilometers
in diameter.
Hostile fire from above can come from either grav vehicles or ships firing
either beam, missile, PA or meson. Our fleet should hold the grav-vehicles
away, PA or meson cannot be armored against, the best defence is moving fast
and low and they are rare enough to make this work. Orbital beams can be
armored against (perhaps, they have penetrations of at least 73 (TL8 beam
laser at short range) but the best defence is still movement, and our fleet
should be able to tie them up to keep them from firing on anything but the
most visible tanks. Orbital missiles lastly can be taken care of by the
point defences, if they get through our fleet, and our movement and everything
else. But missiles also have lower penetration: 55 for Turret and 65 for
Bay missiles at TL16.
From below we can get various boobytraps and infantry weapons. But they will
also at most have a penetration of around 65. If they appear close by the
point defences might not hit them, and it *is* possible to hide them well
enough so that the sensors will miss them. Energy weapons will be close to
impossible to hide due to their powerplants. Meson guns are not possible to
armour against so we discount them, and the PA's won't work in air.
If the enemy uses nukes from below, we can kiss our tank goodbye no matter
how thick the armour, so the most we will need is factor 66.
From the sides we have the enemy tanks and all that. They will use all these
weapons, but the comments on meson guns and PAs still hold. Missiles and
nukes can be defeated by PD since they have long travel tiems. So the
ptrimary threat from enemy tanks will be lasers and hienergy weapons fire
from an almost horizontal direction (remember the pancake?).
If we further assume that our tanks will use their inertail compensators and
not do 'aircraft turns' exposing belly and top we have the following result:
A Gravtank made with Armour 80 on all sides and Armour 66 is as well
adapted to the threat as one with Armour 80 all around. The savings from
this can be placed in *even thicker* armour at the sides, a bigger gun or
something else that makes the tank a better tank.
> An attack may come from any direction, or even all
> at once. If the Grav tank can't survive hits to the belly (from ground
> fire in flight), or hits to the roof(from orbital bombardment or grav
> tanks at higher altitude), or hits to any side (during dogfights), then
> it is worthless as a weapon system.
A tank on the modern battle-field is also attacked from all directions,
often at once: HEAT Clusters, SADARM, BONUS, RBS56 Bill and stuff comes down
through the roof and HEAT AT mines and ordinary AT mines comes up through
the roof, so why isn't a modern tank armored in equal thickness all around?
This is because 90% of the theats come from a mostly horisontal direction.
10% better protection isn't worth 100% added weight and cost, according to
the designers and the evaluation groups.
Why hasn't any modern tank a rear hull armored as good as its glacis?
If gravtanks can appear from behind, so can T76s, so the US Army must
put its trust in its tactics and routines to avoid that some T76s get
behind their M1s, because nobody argues that the M1 is "worthless as a weapon
system."
The idea of the 'invulerable tank' is a myth as is the concept of the
'magic missile' that is supposed to be a one-shot kill, fire and forget,
disposable launcher, infantry anti tank missile that weighs under 20 kilos.
Besides, the myths are mutually exclusive unless we really mean 'our
invulnerable tank' and 'our magic missile' as opposed to 'their junk on
treads' and 'their flying junk'.
> They do not have to be within 150m, just to see the shell travel that
> far. The smallest Nuke in standard Striker is 8cm (100T, TL15)
Ok, a nuclear Carl Gustaf M3 then.
> [email removed]
- -bertil-
- --
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
exercise for your kill-file."