Johannes replied to me: > > Maybe not. Consider the British "Cruiser" and "Infantry" tanks > > which assumed that tanks don't fight tanks, they break through > > the frontline and wreak havoc in the rear areas. > > > > What would the corresponding anti tank weapon be? [...] > So the anti tank vehicle is different to a tank propably in the main > weapon and it propably has a different size. If tanks are useless against > thoose anti tank vehicles, they either need anti anti tank vehicles > (likely the same design as anti tanks) as escorts or they are restricted > to hit and run attacks.
Say the tank is optimized to go after 'crunchies' -- infantry, artillery, and so on. That means heavy armor, a turret-mounted weapon, and high RoF and area effect weapons (an equivalent of MGs and plenty of HE shells in a mid-size gun). The tank destroyer is just against tanks. No heavy armor and no turret mount because it doesn't go in close, and a weapon to penetrate armor at long range. Tanks can kill tank destroyers (small gun vs. thin skin) and tank destroyers can kill tanks (big gun vs. thick skin), but tanks are generalists to break defensive lines and then run wild in the rear area, tank destroyers are specialists only against tanks. Now, I'm not saying this is likely, despite the paragraphs I've just spent on it, but it is a possibility. The mix works until somebody spends the money on a tank with heavy armor and a big gun -- if that monster doesn't break down a lot, and doesn't wreck roads. > At TL11+ you need 27 cf to have artificial gravity for the whole tank. > Seems cheaper then using a turret for the same effect. Even if you have a > much too large artificial gravity unit. If the grav unit makes the vehicle as flexible at a turret. I'm not sure. Regards, Onno _______________________________________________ GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]> http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
