RE: [HOE] Cyborgs/Scrapers vs Power Armor

["Matthew Weaver-Uzelac" <redbird47@hotmail.com>]

The reason why the militaries cranked out power armor and not cyborgs was 
simple:Availibility.

It would be easy to retool an exisisting plant to put out thousands of suits 
of armor a month.  Also manpower to put in these suits would be easy to 
recruit and train for battle.


However, Harrowed individuals are, by the nature of the world, rare.  Not 
everyone who dies becomes harrowed, and not every harrowed in a given 
country is suitable for "cyborgerization"  (hehe I made up a new word)  Why 
would you want harrowed 3 year old as a cyborg ("No Davey, out your father 
down, and put away that flamer, it's time for your nap.") or a 73 year old 
former grandmother and housewife ("This is not what we meant by 'mop-up' 
operation Edith!")  So you're  going to have less "raw material" to work 
with.  You would have small number of "assest" that would be perfectly 
suited for unconventional warfare.

The doctrine of the equally expensive, yet more copious power armored units 
would be to use them as a spearhead for a larger assult (hitting key 
instilations like bases and fortifications just before the tanks arrived to 
plow through.)  They would also be perfect for deep penetration raids into 
enemy territory because they would be mobile and as well armed as a 
mechinized force, but would retain the flexiblity in operations as the 
infantry ("Platoon HIDE!"  Would be much easier for infantry/power armor 
than it would be for tanks, they can't hide in the bushes real well).

So to sum it up,
Borg-too rare, use in unconvetional operations
Power Armor-not as rare, use unconventionally in conventional warfare.

Doc out
(Can anyone else imagine Estel Getty as a cyborg?)
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com