10-23-2019, 03:53 PM | #41 |
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orlando, FL. Please forgive me...
|
Re: In defense of hovertanks
That is an incredibly well thought out and articulated post. Well done, sir. I can't really argue with any of your points. And I especially like your explanation of how the GEV skirt and lift chamber works.
Having said that, it's clear to the inhabitants of the world of OGRE (pity those poor souls) that they think of GEVs (at least the Paneuro ones) as hovercraft. With slang terms such as "blowers" and "hovers" in much of the fiction, scenarios and even the rules, it's clear that the definition of a "hovercraft" in OGRE is much different than what we think of them here in the real world. So, you're absolutely right. I just believe that it is a matter of what constitutes a "hovercraft" in the OGREverse. A good example of this is Mathieu Moyen's excellent article in OGREZine #1 wherein he explained a bit WHY Combine GEVs look so different. In effect, Combine GEVs are "true" ground effect vehicles while the Panueropean GEV is more closely akin to a hovercraft, but still far different than hovercraft as WE think of them.
__________________
"How do you know it's an OGRE Ninja if we can't see it... Oh, right..." John H. |
10-24-2019, 11:01 AM | #42 | |||
Join Date: Aug 2015
|
Re: In defense of hovertanks
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
10-24-2019, 09:17 PM | #43 |
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Pennsylvania
|
Re: In defense of hovertanks
"Several factors led to the reappearance of mechanized warfare. The first, of course, was the development of biphase carbide (BPC) armor. Stronger than any steel, it was also so light that even an aircushion vehicle could carry several centimeters of protection. The equivalent of a ton of TNT was needed to breach even this much BPC armor – which meant that, in practice, nothing less than a tactical nuclear device was likely to be effective."
"The armed hovercraft or ground effect vehicle (GEV), equipped with multileaf spring skirts for broken ground, could make 150 km/h on any decent terrain, and nearly 200 on desert or water. Conventional tanks were slower but tougher. All fired tactical nuclear shells." [Preface from OGRE rules] GEVs were armed with TAC-Nuke rounds and thus able to attack much heavier armored units such as the OGRE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon I understand they are designated as GEV (Ground Effect Vehicle) however, I think GAEV (Ground Air Effect Vehicle) is a more accurate description. They are literally a design fusion of a Ground Effect Vehicle and Jet Aircraft, even Spacecraft Technology. They "effect" not only the ground, but the air around the vehicle. If OGREs were developed and fielded to became the modern indomitable monsters of the TAC-Nuclear Battlefield, such a menagerie of technological advancements, innovations and development would be sought out at all costs to counter this threat and be developed to it's fullest potential as well. Enter the Legendary GEV and the human pilots that flew them against the metal monsters called OGRE! Here are two interesting images showing a GEV that is less "GEV" and more Jet Aircraft, a fusion of the two from a official OGRE game released years ago: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yJvLIYlnMU...2B08.25.50.jpg http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AVP2bHvWDv...2B08.29.35.jpg My take is...GEVs (GAEVs) are all the "hovertank" you need in OGRE.
__________________
"So I stood my ground...my only hope to die as I had always lived-fighting" John Carter of Mars Last edited by Tim Kauffman; 10-24-2019 at 09:26 PM. |
10-26-2019, 10:59 AM | #44 | |||
Join Date: Aug 2015
|
Re: In defense of hovertanks
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The takeaway here is that the GEV redefines what a "tank" actually is. |
|||
10-29-2019, 09:05 PM | #45 |
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hex G1-1508
|
Re: In defense of hovertanks
Regardless of the tech I'm glad that Steve called them GEVs because it sounds really cool.
|
11-03-2019, 11:56 AM | #46 |
Join Date: Aug 2015
|
Re: In defense of hovertanks
|
11-03-2019, 06:33 PM | #47 |
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orlando, FL. Please forgive me...
|
Re: In defense of hovertanks
Could be. Could be.
In J.D. Bell's excellent story "G.E.V." there is mention of the GEVs having dual purpose ammo (at least for their main forward gun, I would think.) The first type of rounds were referred to as "hivelocs", which I believe was short for "high-velocity". While the second type of round had a micronuke warhead. "Our Hivelocs would smoke most normal armor, but not Ogres. That’s what we carried the nuke rounds for." I'm guessing that the turret and sponson mounted guns are effective against infantry and (perhaps) most armor, but that only the main gun (using the nuke rounds) can damage Ogres. So, why not use nothing but nuke rounds? First, I would guess that nuke warheads were far more expensive to manufacture than hivelocs. Second, all sides of the conflict tried not to use too many nuclear rounds. Not because of humanitarian concerns (where the enemy was concerned) but for the safety of their own troops. Too much radiation in a small area would limit an attacker's ability to move forward through that area.
__________________
"How do you know it's an OGRE Ninja if we can't see it... Oh, right..." John H. |
|
|