One of the things that struck me as urealistic in most military
SF is the timeframe and success rate of technology development
projects.

I can take violations of general relativity or the first, second
or third laws of thermodynamics in my stride (some SF authors seem
to have a grasp of the first law, but the second one is far more
elusive), but development projects usually are done on time or
faster and work right the first time.

And reality gives us desasters like the Ajax armored vehicle, about
which https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-60693070 writes
that "more than 300 personnel may have been harmed by vibration
and noise during testing".

In article <t0tat7$6of$5@newsreader4.netcologne.de>,
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
>One of the things that struck me as urealistic in most military
>SF is the timeframe and success rate of technology development
>projects.
>
>I can take violations of general relativity or the first, second
>or third laws of thermodynamics in my stride (some SF authors seem
>to have a grasp of the first law, but the second one is far more
>elusive), but development projects usually are done on time or
>faster and work right the first time.
>
>And reality gives us desasters like the Ajax armored vehicle, about
>which https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-60693070 writes
>that "more than 300 personnel may have been harmed by vibration
>and noise during testing".

Well it depends on what you are willing to accept. My understanding
is that it has been long known that artillery troops tend to go deaf,
but the ability to shell the enemy outweighs that.

As for timelines, in general any project takes a lot longer and
works less well than planned, but there are the counter-arguments
of the Manhattan project and the Moon project so it's not *completely*
implausible.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 6:39:39 PM UTC, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> One of the things that struck me as urealistic in most military
> SF is the timeframe and success rate of technology development
> projects.
>
> I can take violations of general relativity or the first, second
> or third laws of thermodynamics in my stride (some SF authors seem
> to have a grasp of the first law, but the second one is far more
> elusive), but development projects usually are done on time or
> faster and work right the first time.
>
> And reality gives us desasters like the Ajax armored vehicle, about
> which https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-60693070 writes
> that "more than 300 personnel may have been harmed by vibration
> and noise during testing".
I haven't found much scientific discovery in Weber, but the timescale of technological innovation in the Honorverse seems quite reasonable
There is a link to a report on the Ajax programme at https://www.nao.org.uk/report/the-ajax-programme/ Ajax in particular and UK defence procurement in general is so bad that I doubt if it is suitably believable for fiction. However it is apparently the case (the report points this out and a web search will confirm it) that military vehicles are very often so noisy and harsh as to be damaging to their occupants. I remember reading a study of the effect of vibration in fast boats and they claimed that reducing this would actually have a military advantage, by delivering the soldiers in a better shape to fight at the end of the journey.

On 3/16/2022 12:10 PM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <t0tat7$6of$5@newsreader4.netcologne.de>,
> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
>> One of the things that struck me as urealistic in most military
>> SF is the timeframe and success rate of technology development
>> projects.
>>
>> I can take violations of general relativity or the first, second
>> or third laws of thermodynamics in my stride (some SF authors seem
>> to have a grasp of the first law, but the second one is far more
>> elusive), but development projects usually are done on time or
>> faster and work right the first time.
>>
>> And reality gives us desasters like the Ajax armored vehicle, about
>> which https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-60693070 writes
>> that "more than 300 personnel may have been harmed by vibration
>> and noise during testing".
>
> Well it depends on what you are willing to accept. My understanding
> is that it has been long known that artillery troops tend to go deaf,
> but the ability to shell the enemy outweighs that.
>
That's not limited to just artillery troops. Pretty much all troops
that have been in combat have hearing damage.

> As for timelines, in general any project takes a lot longer and
> works less well than planned, but there are the counter-arguments
> of the Manhattan project and the Moon project so it's not *completely*
> implausible.

I'm not sure you want to use those two programs as counter-arguments.
Both had some very serious issues and fatalities among those involved.
There were a number of things that did NOT go well or according to
schedule in both programs. Its just that both were effectively war-time
emergency programs that were going to be pushed through as hard and as
fast as possible no matter what.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 3/16/2022 11:39 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> One of the things that struck me as urealistic in most military
> SF is the timeframe and success rate of technology development
> projects.
>
> I can take violations of general relativity or the first, second
> or third laws of thermodynamics in my stride (some SF authors seem
> to have a grasp of the first law, but the second one is far more
> elusive), but development projects usually are done on time or
> faster and work right the first time.
>
What's funny is that "ahead of schedule without any problems" kind of
development occurs in works written by scientists who have been involved
in that kind of development themselves.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Andrew McDowell <mcdowell_ag@sky.com> schrieb:
> On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 6:39:39 PM UTC, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>> One of the things that struck me as urealistic in most military
>> SF is the timeframe and success rate of technology development
>> projects.
>>
>> I can take violations of general relativity or the first, second
>> or third laws of thermodynamics in my stride (some SF authors seem
>> to have a grasp of the first law, but the second one is far more
>> elusive), but development projects usually are done on time or
>> faster and work right the first time.
>>
>> And reality gives us desasters like the Ajax armored vehicle, about
>> which https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-60693070 writes
>> that "more than 300 personnel may have been harmed by vibration
>> and noise during testing".
> I haven't found much scientific discovery in Weber, but the
> timescale of technological innovation in the Honorverse seems
> quite reasonable

> There is a link to a report on the Ajax programme at
> https://www.nao.org.uk/report/the-ajax-programme/ Ajax in particular
> and UK defence procurement in general is so bad that I doubt if it
> is suitably believable for fiction. However it is apparently the
> case (the report points this out and a web search will confirm it)
> that military vehicles are very often so noisy and harsh as to
> be damaging to their occupants.

The Puma is different there. I recently talked to somebody who is
part of its crew, and he told me it is actually quite quiet and nice
to ride even while the its gun is firing, Unless you stick out your
head at the time... then your ear protection had better be good.

Not that the Puma doesn't have more than its fair share of problems,
to be sure.

> I remember reading a study of the
> effect of vibration in fast boats and they claimed that reducing
> this would actually have a military advantage, by delivering the
> soldiers in a better shape to fight at the end of the journey.

You're right... but people getting Tinnitus inside the vehicle
during _testing_ sounds strange (pun intended), and people not
knowing if the vibrations are due to a fundamental problem or the
vehicles not being made to spec is even stranger.

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> schrieb:
> On 3/16/2022 11:39 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>> One of the things that struck me as urealistic in most military
>> SF is the timeframe and success rate of technology development
>> projects.
>>
>> I can take violations of general relativity or the first, second
>> or third laws of thermodynamics in my stride (some SF authors seem
>> to have a grasp of the first law, but the second one is far more
>> elusive), but development projects usually are done on time or
>> faster and work right the first time.
>>
> What's funny is that "ahead of schedule without any problems" kind of
> development occurs in works written by scientists who have been involved
> in that kind of development themselves.

Which author do you have in mind?

ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote in
news:j9er0rF38q6U1@mid.individual.net:

> In article <t0tat7$6of$5@newsreader4.netcologne.de>,
> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
>>One of the things that struck me as urealistic in most military
>>SF is the timeframe and success rate of technology development
>>projects.
>>
>>I can take violations of general relativity or the first, second
>>or third laws of thermodynamics in my stride (some SF authors
>>seem to have a grasp of the first law, but the second one is far
>>more elusive), but development projects usually are done on time
>>or faster and work right the first time.
>>
>>And reality gives us desasters like the Ajax armored vehicle,
>>about which https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-60693070
>>writes that "more than 300 personnel may have been harmed by
>>vibration and noise during testing".
>
> Well it depends on what you are willing to accept. My
> understanding is that it has been long known that artillery
> troops tend to go deaf, but the ability to shell the enemy
> outweighs that.

My brother was assigned to an artillery unit because he already had
some hearing loss on one side, so they figured "how much harm can
it do?"
>
> As for timelines, in general any project takes a lot longer and
> works less well than planned, but there are the
> counter-arguments of the Manhattan project and the Moon project
> so it's not *completely* implausible.

It's extraordinary in the real world, but who wants to read fiction
about ordinary people doing ordinary things?

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On 3/16/2022 1:22 PM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> schrieb:
>> On 3/16/2022 11:39 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>> One of the things that struck me as urealistic in most military
>>> SF is the timeframe and success rate of technology development
>>> projects.
>>>
>>> I can take violations of general relativity or the first, second
>>> or third laws of thermodynamics in my stride (some SF authors seem
>>> to have a grasp of the first law, but the second one is far more
>>> elusive), but development projects usually are done on time or
>>> faster and work right the first time.
>>>
>> What's funny is that "ahead of schedule without any problems" kind of
>> development occurs in works written by scientists who have been involved
>> in that kind of development themselves.
>
> Which author do you have in mind?

The one that first comes to mind is Travis Taylor.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 3/16/2022 7:37 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 3/16/2022 1:22 PM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> schrieb:
>>> On 3/16/2022 11:39 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>>> One of the things that struck me as urealistic in most military
>>>> SF is the timeframe and success rate of technology development
>>>> projects.
>>>>
>>>> I can take violations of general relativity or the first, second
>>>> or third laws of thermodynamics in my stride (some SF authors seem
>>>> to have a grasp of the first law, but the second one is far more
>>>> elusive), but development projects usually are done on time or
>>>> faster and work right the first time.
>>>>
>>> What's funny is that "ahead of schedule without any problems" kind of
>>> development occurs in works written by scientists who have been involved
>>> in that kind of development themselves.
>>
>> Which author do you have in mind?
>
> The one that first comes to mind is Travis Taylor.

Yes, Dr. Travis Taylor should know better. I still like his writing.

Lynn

On 3/16/2022 7:52 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 3/16/2022 7:37 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 3/16/2022 1:22 PM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> schrieb:
>>>> On 3/16/2022 11:39 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>>>> One of the things that struck me as urealistic in most military
>>>>> SF is the timeframe and success rate of technology development
>>>>> projects.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can take violations of general relativity or the first, second
>>>>> or third laws of thermodynamics in my stride (some SF authors seem
>>>>> to have a grasp of the first law, but the second one is far more
>>>>> elusive), but development projects usually are done on time or
>>>>> faster and work right the first time.
>>>>>
>>>> What's funny is that "ahead of schedule without any problems" kind of
>>>> development occurs in works written by scientists who have been
>>>> involved
>>>> in that kind of development themselves.
>>>
>>> Which author do you have in mind?
>>
>> The one that first comes to mind is Travis Taylor.
>
> Yes, Dr. Travis Taylor should know better.  I still like his writing.
>
I like his books as well but you know going into them that he's not
really entirely serious about any of the stories he writes. :) C'mon!
His whole 'Tau Ceti Agenda' series was just an excuse to write his own
version of Transformers!

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 4:16:47 PM UTC-4, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 3/16/2022 12:10 PM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> > In article <t0tat7$6of$5...@newsreader4.netcologne.de>,
> > Thomas Koenig <tko...@netcologne.de> wrote:
> >> One of the things that struck me as urealistic in most military
> >> SF is the timeframe and success rate of technology development
> >> projects.
> >>
> >> I can take violations of general relativity or the first, second
> >> or third laws of thermodynamics in my stride (some SF authors seem
> >> to have a grasp of the first law, but the second one is far more
> >> elusive), but development projects usually are done on time or
> >> faster and work right the first time.
> >>
> >> And reality gives us desasters like the Ajax armored vehicle, about
> >> which https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-60693070 writes
> >> that "more than 300 personnel may have been harmed by vibration
> >> and noise during testing".
> >
> > Well it depends on what you are willing to accept. My understanding
> > is that it has been long known that artillery troops tend to go deaf,
> > but the ability to shell the enemy outweighs that.
> >
> That's not limited to just artillery troops. Pretty much all troops
> that have been in combat have hearing damage.

Indeed. I have more than a little exposure to firearms. I'll consider
firing a 22LR rifle outdoors without protection. Anything else, the
muffs go on.

Pt

On Wednesday, 16 March 2022 at 18:39:39 UTC, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> One of the things that struck me as urealistic in most military
> SF is the timeframe and success rate of technology development
> projects.
>
> I can take violations of general relativity or the first, second
> or third laws of thermodynamics in my stride (some SF authors seem
> to have a grasp of the first law, but the second one is far more
> elusive), but development projects usually are done on time or
> faster and work right the first time.
>
> And reality gives us desasters like the Ajax armored vehicle, about
> which https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-60693070 writes
> that "more than 300 personnel may have been harmed by vibration
> and noise during testing".

Maybe I'm reading the wrong military SF and not enough
of it, but I haven't registered technology development as
a theme. People basically use the technology they had
when war broke out. Though we say that in real life,
war stimulates technology development.

Perhaps it's more unrealistic that people, not robots,
are fighting, in a future setting? Despite detailed
consideration of why that could be a bad idea in
"The Reith Lectures":
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001216k/episodes/player>

On 3/16/2022 10:50 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 3/16/2022 7:52 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 3/16/2022 7:37 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>> On 3/16/2022 1:22 PM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> schrieb:
>>>>> On 3/16/2022 11:39 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>>>>> One of the things that struck me as urealistic in most military
>>>>>> SF is the timeframe and success rate of technology development
>>>>>> projects.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can take violations of general relativity or the first, second
>>>>>> or third laws of thermodynamics in my stride (some SF authors seem
>>>>>> to have a grasp of the first law, but the second one is far more
>>>>>> elusive), but development projects usually are done on time or
>>>>>> faster and work right the first time.
>>>>>>
>>>>> What's funny is that "ahead of schedule without any problems" kind of
>>>>> development occurs in works written by scientists who have been
>>>>> involved
>>>>> in that kind of development themselves.
>>>>
>>>> Which author do you have in mind?
>>>
>>> The one that first comes to mind is Travis Taylor.
>>
>> Yes, Dr. Travis Taylor should know better.  I still like his writing.
>>
> I like his books as well but you know going into them that he's not
> really entirely serious about any of the stories he writes.  :)  C'mon!
>  His whole 'Tau Ceti Agenda' series was just an excuse to write his own
> version of Transformers!

Which were cool !

Lynn

On 16/03/2022 13.39, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> One of the things that struck me as urealistic in most military
> SF is the timeframe and success rate of technology development
> projects.
>
> I can take violations of general relativity or the first, second
> or third laws of thermodynamics in my stride (some SF authors seem
> to have a grasp of the first law, but the second one is far more
> elusive), but development projects usually are done on time or
> faster and work right the first time.

Doc Smith, who was a working engineer, seemed to be immune to this.
He regularly portrayed setbacks in development of new technologies.
A few examples:

_The Skylark of Space_: After Seaton and Crane return from a test
flight of the new ship, Seaton takes Mr. Vaneman aside and tells him
that they still had a few glitches to be worked out, including the
waste management system.

_Triplanetary_: During the attempts to develop an inertialess drive,
many ships blew up, taking all aboard to the next plane of existence.

_Second Stage Lensmen_: The newly-developed sunbeam barely worked
during the Boskonian attack on Tellus. (I suppose one could say that
any attack that you survive is a successful defense. None the less, he
had Kinnison point out that it barely worked.)

I think that one of the planetary mining expeditions in _Subspace
Explorers_ had some big setbacks, as well. Not having read it in eleven
years, this is only a vague recollection.

--
Michael F. Stemper
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.

On 3/17/2022 12:13 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 3/16/2022 10:50 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 3/16/2022 7:52 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> On 3/16/2022 7:37 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>> On 3/16/2022 1:22 PM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> schrieb:
>>>>>> On 3/16/2022 11:39 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>>>>>> One of the things that struck me as urealistic in most military
>>>>>>> SF is the timeframe and success rate of technology development
>>>>>>> projects.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can take violations of general relativity or the first, second
>>>>>>> or third laws of thermodynamics in my stride (some SF authors seem
>>>>>>> to have a grasp of the first law, but the second one is far more
>>>>>>> elusive), but development projects usually are done on time or
>>>>>>> faster and work right the first time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's funny is that "ahead of schedule without any problems" kind of
>>>>>> development occurs in works written by scientists who have been
>>>>>> involved
>>>>>> in that kind of development themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which author do you have in mind?
>>>>
>>>> The one that first comes to mind is Travis Taylor.
>>>
>>> Yes, Dr. Travis Taylor should know better.  I still like his writing.
>>>
>> I like his books as well but you know going into them that he's not
>> really entirely serious about any of the stories he writes.  :)
>> C'mon!   His whole 'Tau Ceti Agenda' series was just an excuse to
>> write his own version of Transformers!
>
> Which were cool !
>
The Rule of Cool trumping Silly.

(And yes, I've read the entire series to date. Or at least as much of
it as I'm aware of.)

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 3/17/2022 3:13 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 3/17/2022 12:13 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 3/16/2022 10:50 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>> On 3/16/2022 7:52 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>> On 3/16/2022 7:37 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>> On 3/16/2022 1:22 PM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> schrieb:
>>>>>>> On 3/16/2022 11:39 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>>>>>>> One of the things that struck me as urealistic in most military
>>>>>>>> SF is the timeframe and success rate of technology development
>>>>>>>> projects.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can take violations of general relativity or the first, second
>>>>>>>> or third laws of thermodynamics in my stride (some SF authors seem
>>>>>>>> to have a grasp of the first law, but the second one is far more
>>>>>>>> elusive), but development projects usually are done on time or
>>>>>>>> faster and work right the first time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What's funny is that "ahead of schedule without any problems"
>>>>>>> kind of
>>>>>>> development occurs in works written by scientists who have been
>>>>>>> involved
>>>>>>> in that kind of development themselves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which author do you have in mind?
>>>>>
>>>>> The one that first comes to mind is Travis Taylor.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, Dr. Travis Taylor should know better.  I still like his writing.
>>>>
>>> I like his books as well but you know going into them that he's not
>>> really entirely serious about any of the stories he writes.  :)
>>> C'mon!   His whole 'Tau Ceti Agenda' series was just an excuse to
>>> write his own version of Transformers!
>>
>> Which were cool !
>>
> The Rule of Cool trumping Silly.
>
> (And yes, I've read the entire series to date.  Or at least as much of
> it as I'm aware of.)

Six books and counting.
https://www.amazon.com/One-Day-Mars-Ceti-Agenda/dp/1416591575/
and
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B074CDLXL3/

I also like his Warp Speed books.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00AP91ZNW/

Lynn

On 3/17/2022 2:31 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 3/17/2022 3:13 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 3/17/2022 12:13 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> On 3/16/2022 10:50 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>> On 3/16/2022 7:52 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>> On 3/16/2022 7:37 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/16/2022 1:22 PM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>>>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> schrieb:
>>>>>>>> On 3/16/2022 11:39 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>>>>>>>> One of the things that struck me as urealistic in most military
>>>>>>>>> SF is the timeframe and success rate of technology development
>>>>>>>>> projects.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can take violations of general relativity or the first, second
>>>>>>>>> or third laws of thermodynamics in my stride (some SF authors seem
>>>>>>>>> to have a grasp of the first law, but the second one is far more
>>>>>>>>> elusive), but development projects usually are done on time or
>>>>>>>>> faster and work right the first time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What's funny is that "ahead of schedule without any problems"
>>>>>>>> kind of
>>>>>>>> development occurs in works written by scientists who have been
>>>>>>>> involved
>>>>>>>> in that kind of development themselves.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which author do you have in mind?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The one that first comes to mind is Travis Taylor.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, Dr. Travis Taylor should know better.  I still like his writing.
>>>>>
>>>> I like his books as well but you know going into them that he's not
>>>> really entirely serious about any of the stories he writes.  :)
>>>> C'mon!   His whole 'Tau Ceti Agenda' series was just an excuse to
>>>> write his own version of Transformers!
>>>
>>> Which were cool !
>>>
>> The Rule of Cool trumping Silly.
>>
>> (And yes, I've read the entire series to date.  Or at least as much of
>> it as I'm aware of.)
>
> Six books and counting.
>    https://www.amazon.com/One-Day-Mars-Ceti-Agenda/dp/1416591575/
> and
>    https://www.amazon.com/dp/B074CDLXL3/
>
> I also like his Warp Speed books.
>    https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00AP91ZNW/
>
Got all of those. Been long enough to call Warp Speed dead. Curious if
he's planning more for Tau Ceti.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 17/03/2022 11.35, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 12:18:00 -0700 (PDT), Andrew McDowell
> <mcdowell_ag@sky.com> wrote:

>> There is a link to a report on the Ajax programme at https://www.nao.org.uk/report/the-ajax-programme/ Ajax in particular and UK defence procurement in general is so bad that I doubt if it is suitably believable for fiction. However it is apparently the case (the report points this out and a web search will confirm it) that military vehicles are very often so noisy and harsh as to be damaging to their occupants. I remember reading a study of the effect of vibration in fast boats and they claimed that reducing this would actually have a military advantage, by delivering the soldiers in a better shape to fight at the end of the journey.
>
> But ... but ... that would be /coddling/ the troops.
>
> And We Can't Have That.

I seem to recall that early on in Solzhenitsyn's _August, 1914_, some
Russian General had the trains that were delivering soldiers to the
German front stop a good dozen miles behind the lines. It was a
combination of protecting valuable rolling stock and making sure that
the soldiers weren't being coddled.

It also meant that they arrived at the front after a refreshing ten
or twelve mile march, and thus in better shape to fight.

--
Michael F. Stemper
Always use apostrophe's and "quotation marks" properly.