On 4/20/2016 4:21 PM, Greg Chalik wrote:

I thought quite a few times about what happens to older TL equipment in Traveller. Obsolete may have a different meaning on different worlds.

Also, its a myth that tinkering with old technology can produce a better capability. In general, a design would cost up to 200% to go through a redesign that changed its use requirement even 10%. This option is the least viable, and usually the last option taken when nothing else is available.

Cheers
Greg

Perhaps you are not understanding some nuances of 'superior performance'? You are unlikely to have ever shoe-horned a Turbo-charged V-8 into a Ford Pinto which certainly gives it 'superior performance' compared to other Pintos and allows it to compete with cars that would easily outperform its stock versions. And if your opponent came to the race expecting to compete against Pintos with 2L four cylinder engines...well he is in for a surprise. And yes, wholesale replacements of major systems is 'tinkering' to me.

To elaborate on what I had in mind consider the cycle of Up-gun/up-armor/up engine that many designs go through. In the OTU arms manufacturers know that they have markets across several tech levels. Two design ideals would emerge pretty quickly - design for just a tech level as cheaply as possible (offering several price points and options) or design for a continuing set of modular upgrades in capability (Weapons, armor, mobility, and mission) both within and across tech level boundaries to be sold to customers as their requirements change. In either case it is likely that there would be a thriving aftermarket for upgrades and add-ons. The latter option would address a lot of your objection about redesigning a vehicle being onerous and costly - if it is designed to be upgraded changing things should be cheaper.   

I would love to see some concrete cites on costs of converting base models to changed use requirements. What exactly does a change of requirement mean to you? it didn't seem to cost too much to convert a C-47 into Puff the Magic Dragon. The Israeli's seemed to have done quite well with modding the M-4 Sherman to be able to compete against T-54/55 models. We have done some extensive modifications of armored vehicles  - the Churchill being made into the AVRE (or any other MBT being the base for a combat engineering and recovery vehicle), the M4 chassis being used for tank destroyers, up-gunned, made into troop carriers,  mounting MRLs, Hobarts funnies, etc. Better engines (or just changing from gas to diesel to cut down on flammability!), more armor - sometimes as field expedient add-ons. Is the TUSK add-on for M1 tanks a change of requirement? How about the Soviet adoption of reactive armor? These are all examples of states not deciding to create a new vehicle to fulfill a role (which they could do) but to modify an existing vehicle for that role or to meet changing battlefield conditions.  These sort of things have certainly been done by states that had other armaments available to them but could not afford them so your assertion that, because of cost, "This option is the least viable and usually the last option taken when nothing else is available." seems odd to me.



Some examples of tinkering producing upsetting results:

Attacker expects to 'own the night' with extensive use of thermal sights against IC drivetrains - defenders had gone all electric just before the invasion and has a much lower thermal signature.

Attacker expects his armor to be sufficiently robust against what the defender's CPR guns can throw - defenders went to rocket propelled APFSDSDU rounds that are significantly more capable.

Attacker uses EMP devices to degrade 3CI - Defender had executed a communications upgrade and ruggedization. Sure the chassis is early TL8 but why ignore the existence of EMP bombs?

Defender upgrades engines and armor getting better protection AND mobility.