Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Bryan Pow)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Tue Aug 6 21:55:01 2002
Theyre availability 8
1200 for the launcher
1000 for a missile
20D antivehicular missile with intelligence of 4

Thesze things kick ass and can be stocke up on at character gen.
Are they too good?
Are they there simply to balance the availability of drones?
Why are other missile etc. so hard to get ahold of?

--
Ein scharfes Schwert schneidet sehr, eine scharfe Zunge noch viel mehr.
The tongue is sharper than any sword.
Message no. 2
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Valeu John EMFA)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Tue Aug 6 22:55:01 2002
> Theyre availability 8
> 1200 for the launcher
> 1000 for a missile
> 20D antivehicular missile with intelligence of 4
>
> Thesze things kick ass and can be stocke up on at character gen.
> Are they too good?
> Are they there simply to balance the availability of drones?
> Why are other missile etc. so hard to get ahold of?
>
[Valeu John EMFA]
I think that might be a carry over from Fields of Fire, back when
chars could only start with Avail of 6.
They're also pretty much for field ops, not urban ops. That back
blast tends to hurt. And they're NOT mobile.
You're going to need someplace to mount it on it's tripod and also
going to need someone/something to paint
the target.

EMFN John Valeu
-AKA- TimeKeeper
Message no. 3
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Augustus)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Tue Aug 6 23:35:00 2002
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryan Pow" <powbr323@*******.otago.ac.nz>


> Theyre availability 8
> 1200 for the launcher
> 1000 for a missile
> 20D antivehicular missile with intelligence of 4
>
> Thesze things kick ass and can be stocke up on at character gen.

This'd really depend on your GM... As a GM, I'm quite the tightwad when it
comes to character generation. I don't mind big guns and such, but treat
alot of it like it should be earned, etc.

> Are they too good?

I don't think they really fit in the game (see long winded response below)

> Are they there simply to balance the availability of drones?

Drones have no armour or body... the average shadowrunner should be able to
down a drone in 2 or 3 shots from a heavy pistol... would be kind of a waste
of money

The long winded commentary:

20D antivehicular damage is quite abit... In all my years of GMing shadowrun
(12.5 years to be exact) I can't really think of any time something like
this would have been all that useful (maybe back in 1997 when the PCs tried,
but failed, to assassinate Lofwyr).

Most vehicles have such poor body and armour attributes that they "go down"
faster than most NPCs

NPCs will not only have the same or higher body, equivalent armour... but
they also might have a karma pool, combat pool and/or a "threat rating"
(depending on your edition of Shadowrun).

Vehicles don't. They typically have a low body and feeble armour (in a few
cases, strong enought that light weapons bounce off easily, but that
anything half decent will just punch through).

I attribute this to the days of SR1... when a vehicle with 4 body and 4
armour was pretty powerful (under those game mechanics), but when the game
moved to 2nd edition, I think they didn't want to make the Rigger Black Book
so instantly useless that they kept vehicle attributes in the same area as
they were in SR1 (which made vehicles suddenly feeble... 4 body and 4 armour
in SR2 is NOTHING like it was in the days of SR1)

So hence why I say that 20D anti vehicle weapons don't have much place in
the game... its just a big waste of money, because quite a few guns can do
what that missile launcher can do, and they're ammo is alot cheaper

Clint
Message no. 4
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Bryan Pow)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Tue Aug 6 23:55:01 2002
> [Valeu John EMFA]
> I think that might be a carry over from Fields of Fire, back when
>chars could only start with Avail of 6.
> They're also pretty much for field ops, not urban ops. That back
>blast tends to hurt. And they're NOT mobile.
> You're going to need someplace to mount it on it's tripod and also
>going to need someone/something to paint
> the target.

The Scope and description indicate that the weapon requires a gunner, and no
"painting" of targets. You'd need to buy a seeker head for that to work.

--
"No grand idea was ever born in a conference, but alot of foolish ideas have
died there."
F. Scott Fitzgerald


_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Message no. 5
From: shadowrn@*********.com (-Â¥-Zeb-Â¥-)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Wed Aug 7 01:30:01 2002
"Augustus" <shadowrun@********.net> wrote:

>
> I attribute this to the days of SR1... when a vehicle with 4 body and 4
> armour was pretty powerful (under those game mechanics), but when the
game
> moved to 2nd edition, I think they didn't want to make the Rigger Black
Book
> so instantly useless that they kept vehicle attributes in the same area
as
> they were in SR1 (which made vehicles suddenly feeble... 4 body and 4
armour
> in SR2 is NOTHING like it was in the days of SR1)
>
>

Enlighten those of us without SR1, how was body 4 and armor 4 so good in
SR1?

Zebulin
Message no. 6
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Augustus)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Wed Aug 7 03:05:00 2002
----- Original Message -----
From: "-¥-Zeb-¥-" <zebulingod@*****.com>
To: <shadowrn@*********.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 10:30 PM
Subject: Re: Great Dragon


> "Augustus" <shadowrun@********.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > I attribute this to the days of SR1... when a vehicle with 4 body and 4
> > armour was pretty powerful (under those game mechanics), but when the
> game
> > moved to 2nd edition, I think they didn't want to make the Rigger Black
> Book
> > so instantly useless that they kept vehicle attributes in the same area
> as
> > they were in SR1 (which made vehicles suddenly feeble... 4 body and 4
> armour
> > in SR2 is NOTHING like it was in the days of SR1)
> >
> >
>
> Enlighten those of us without SR1, how was body 4 and armor 4 so good in
> SR1?

In SR1, Armour was automatic successes, rather than reducing the power level
of the attack
(example: somebody shoots you with a gun that does 7M2 damage... rolls 3
successes and stages the damage up to 7S2... you are wearing an armour
jacket (rating: 5/3). That gives you 5 automatic successes for reducing the
damage... you need to roll one 7 with your body dice to take no damage...
"Dodge Pool" dice were also automatic successes, so you could technically
throw in 1 dodge pool dice and *poof* no damage)

Power level of attacks was also lower... ie: an Uzi did 4M3... HK227 was 5M3
(the 3 being the staging... how many successes to stage up or down)

Its been awhile, but iirc, vehicle armour was also doubled against non AV
attacks... so hence why they were practically impervious to normal weapons
(armour 4 = 8 automatic successes against normal weapons)

Clint
Message no. 7
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Wed Aug 7 03:35:01 2002
> Drones have no armour or body... the average shadowrunner should be
able
> to
> down a drone in 2 or 3 shots from a heavy pistol... would be kind of a
> waste
> of money

you said WHAT???? You apparently have never looked at a steel lynx, it's
MADE for COMBAT, most people put an autocannon or a minigun on it, not
only are you fighting the fact that it DOES come with a decent armor
rating (and they use the vehicular armor ratings thereby halving regular
rounds power and damage) you're also fighting the obscene amount of
firepower these things are capable of carrying!

Derek
Message no. 8
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Wed Aug 7 05:40:01 2002
According to Augustus, on Wed, 07 Aug 2002 the word on the street was...

> Its been awhile, but iirc, vehicle armour was also doubled against non AV
> attacks... so hence why they were practically impervious to normal
> weapons (armour 4 = 8 automatic successes against normal weapons)

Actually, a weapon's Power and Staging were halved against vehicles, and
the Damage Level went down by one. (It may be good to mention that the
vehicle rules in SR1 consisted of 2-2/3 pages, two of which had half-page
illustrations on them, though.)

The halved Power was dropped in SR2, which accounts for vehicles being much
more vulnerable under those rules, but re-instated in Rigger 2 (or 3? I
don't remember).

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Huh?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 9
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Wed Aug 7 05:40:04 2002
According to Valeu John EMFA, on Wed, 07 Aug 2002 the word on the street was...

> I think that might be a carry over from Fields of Fire, back when
> chars could only start with Avail of 6.

The Availability limit has always been 8, when there was a limit anyway.

> They're also pretty much for field ops, not urban ops. That back
> blast tends to hurt.

True, but that's easy enough to get around by paying attention to where you
set it up. Fire along a street, for example, instead of across it when you're
near a building. Or fire from a building down into the street. If you have the
time to prepare a firing position, all this should not be a problem.

> And they're NOT mobile.

The Great Dragon is obviously SR's version of the (less-than-)modern M47
Dragon ATGM, which is portable enough to be carried and fired by a single
soldier. Especially because it only weighs 2.75 kg (!!!), it should be easily
portable even if it were 3 meters long. (Though in that case you'd probably
have problems carrying it when the wind is blowing :)

> You're going to need someplace to mount it on it's tripod and also
> going to need someone/something to paint the target.

That's what the integral sight on the thing does.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Huh?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 10
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Wed Aug 7 05:40:10 2002
>From: "Augustus" <shadowrun@********.net>
>Drones have no armour or body... the average shadowrunner should be able to
>down a drone in 2 or 3 shots from a heavy pistol... would be kind of a
>waste
>of money

What about the Steel Lynx, if noone is carrying AV rounds those things can
really be nasty, pred shots bounce off them, Assault rifles don't phase
them... granted you don't need a Great Dragon to take them out but they are
beyond most small arms.

I would suggest that the GD is there more for completeness than anything
else, like the plasteel 7 catalyst in the chemistry section of man and
machine, a substance introduced with the earliest shadowruns and never used
since.
But without the GD how could you take over the Nakatomi building?
"Yippee kiyay mother-fragger."
"...And the quarterback is toast!"

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 11
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Bryan Pow)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Wed Aug 7 06:10:02 2002
>Are they there simply to balance the availability of drones?
>
>Drones have no armour or body... the average shadowrunner should be able to
>down a drone in 2 or 3 shots from a heavy pistol... of money

Two words
Are Guardian

This is available at char-gen and is almost unstoppable by a starting
character

--
"No grand idea was ever born in a conference, but alot of foolish ideas have
died there."
F. Scott Fitzgerald


_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Message no. 12
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Wed Aug 7 07:55:01 2002
>Drones have no armour or body... the average shadowrunner should be able to
>down a drone in 2 or 3 shots from a heavy pistol... would be kind of a
waste
>of money

The Steel Lynx combat drone has 12 points of hardened vehicle armour. This
will stop anything up to a sniper rifle with AV rounds...Great Dragon would
be useful here!

>
>The long winded commentary:
>
>20D antivehicular damage is quite abit... In all my years of GMing
shadowrun
>(12.5 years to be exact) I can't really think of any time something like
>this would have been all that useful (maybe back in 1997 when the PCs
tried,
>but failed, to assassinate Lofwyr).
>
>Most vehicles have such poor body and armour attributes that they "go down"
>faster than most NPCs

Any vehicle my rigger plans to do combat in has at least 6 points of
armour(concealed). It cuts down on the cargo space quiet a bit but with a
body of 4 you don't want some arrogant razor guy blowing it away with a
heavy pistol and an AV round.
>
>NPCs will not only have the same or higher body, equivalent armour... but
>they also might have a karma pool, combat pool and/or a "threat rating"
>(depending on your edition of Shadowrun).
>
>Vehicles don't.

Riggers use control pool to evade incoming fire. And Karma pool.



Coyote
Rigger Fanatic
Who would rather not see bad guys using Great Dragons on his stuff.
It causes all kinds of ulcers...
Message no. 13
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Wed Aug 7 08:05:00 2002
>From: Gurth [mailto:Gurth@******.nl]
>The halved Power was dropped in SR2, which accounts for vehicles being much

>more vulnerable under those rules, but re-instated in Rigger 2 (or 3? I
>don't remember).

Re-instated in Rigger 2
Rigger 3 gives you the option of using cheaper and lighter personel style
armour on drones or vehicles. Not a good idea for combat drones but useful
for recon drones that may see the occasional small arms fire or concussion
from grenades.

Coyote
Message no. 14
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Wed Aug 7 08:10:04 2002
>The Great Dragon is obviously SR's version of the (less-than-)modern M47
>Dragon ATGM, which is portable enough to be carried and fired by a single
>soldier. Especially because it only weighs 2.75 kg (!!!), it should be
easily
>portable even if it were 3 meters long. (Though in that case you'd probably

>have problems carrying it when the wind is blowing :)

These things also take a hell of a lot of time to set up unless they are
vehicle mounted. They would be great if you had the time to set them up for
a defensive position but shadowrunners are usualy a lot more mobile. I
don't picture it as something a Sammie could pull out of his pack and fire
like a LAW...

Coyote
Message no. 15
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Wed Aug 7 09:00:01 2002
>From: York.GA@******.ca
>These things also take a hell of a lot of time to set up unless they are
>vehicle mounted. They would be great if you had the time to set them up
>for
>a defensive position but shadowrunners are usualy a lot more mobile. I
>don't picture it as something a Sammie could pull out of his pack and fire
>like a LAW...

They're the sort of thing you only use on those rare 'runs where your intell
is absolutely spot on, where you know that the first security response is to
send a Striker out to check, you trip sec, the striker comes out, straight
into the GD lined up dead on where it's going to be.
They're the sort of thing you think about if you're Alan Rickman.

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Message no. 16
From: shadowrn@*********.com (-Â¥-Zeb-Â¥-)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Wed Aug 7 10:35:01 2002
<York.GA@******.ca> wrote:

> >From: Gurth [mailto:Gurth@******.nl]
> >The halved Power was dropped in SR2, which accounts for vehicles being
much
>
> >more vulnerable under those rules, but re-instated in Rigger 2 (or 3? I
> >don't remember).
>
> Re-instated in Rigger 2
>

Page Reference?

Zebulin
Message no. 17
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Wed Aug 7 11:15:00 2002
> >From: Gurth [mailto:Gurth@******.nl]
> >The halved Power was dropped in SR2, which accounts for vehicles being
much
>
> >more vulnerable under those rules, but re-instated in Rigger 2 (or 3? I
> >don't remember).
>
> Re-instated in Rigger 2
>
>
>Page Reference?
>
>Zebulin

Rigger 2 pg. 53
Message no. 18
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Arclight)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Wed Aug 7 11:40:03 2002
At 11:30 07.08.2002 +0200, Gurth wrote:

> > They're also pretty much for field ops, not urban ops. That back
> > blast tends to hurt.
>
>True, but that's easy enough to get around by paying attention to where you
>set it up. Fire along a street, for example, instead of across it when you're
>near a building. Or fire from a building down into the street. If you have
>the
>time to prepare a firing position, all this should not be a problem.

Or position it in a way that the backblast hits the doorway and enters the
next room. Let the troll-sam tear down a part of the wall, or wear
appropriate armor. Great Dragons are great assassination weapons - hit the
car and kill all passengers :)

--
Arclight

Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous
Message no. 19
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Grim Shear)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Wed Aug 7 11:40:06 2002
>"Lone Eagle" <loneeagle2061@*******.com> said:
>What about the Steel Lynx, if noone is carrying AV rounds those things can
>really be nasty, pred shots bounce off them, Assault rifles don't phase
>them... granted you don't need a Great Dragon to take them out but they are
>beyond most small arms.
<snip>

Which is exactly why they're described as "a hardened ground-combat machine
designed to clear out even the most defensible position."

It's supposed to be a small tank, and it's main drawback is that it only has
a Body of 2. Take a burst from a standard assault rifle to it: 11S becomes
5M, then nothing happens, because it's vehicle armor. Okay, this is harsh
for guys toting assault rifles. As an extreme example, you could shoot it
with a PAC, and if you didn't get to stage up damage, it would bounce off.

The second it goes up against anything heavier, it starts failing. HMG's,
even MMG's are quite capable of doing rather nasty things to one. And all of
this is _without_ AV ammo.

Any sort of damage that gets past a vehicles armor tends to begin doing very
bad things to it, mainly because most vehicles have bad Body values.

Grim Shear
"The man in the... Okay! who the hell still uses iron?"

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Message no. 20
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Wed Aug 7 12:20:01 2002
>From: "Grim Shear" <grim_shear@*******.com>
>Any sort of damage that gets past a vehicles armor tends to begin doing
>very bad things to it, mainly because most vehicles have bad Body values.

Just a thought, has anyone tried this? Change the stage value of a vehicle's
body roll, have it stage with every success rather than every pair. Granted,
unless you're staging beyond deadly it makes it very very difficult to shoot
down something like an Ares Dragon but... The American PaveLow transport
helo (which I read as about the dragon's closest equivalent) has huge and
silly quantities of titanium armour plate around all of its essential
gubbins it has to be hugely difficult to shoot down, makes sense really or
every one of them that had ever flown into a hot zone would still be there,
a victim of small arms fire.


_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Message no. 21
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Wed Aug 7 13:20:01 2002
>Just a thought, has anyone tried this? Change the stage value of a
vehicle's
>body roll, have it stage with every success rather than every pair.
Granted,
>unless you're staging beyond deadly it makes it very very difficult to
shoot
>down something like an Ares Dragon but... The American PaveLow transport
>helo (which I read as about the dragon's closest equivalent) has huge and
>silly quantities of titanium armour plate around all of its essential
>gubbins it has to be hugely difficult to shoot down, makes sense really or
>every one of them that had ever flown into a hot zone would still be there,

>a victim of small arms fire.

With 6 points of vehicle armour small arms fire is not an issue. It just
goes plink. Even a heavy pistol with AV rounds would only cause a roll of
4M with a body of 6...not including staging if it was a really good shot.
Range and signature are also an issue in favor of the helo since they don't
usually hang around at optimal pistol ranges. Until you get into the heavier
categories including sniper rifle, MMG, HMG and assault cannon a decent
rigger should be in very little danger. This is probably for the best in
the current game system because every box of damage costs the rigger at
least 10% of the vehicles value to repair. For a helo chassis this amounts
to around 20,000 - 40,000 nuyen for a light wound. Ouch!!!


Coyote
Message no. 22
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Wed Aug 7 13:20:03 2002
> They're also pretty much for field ops, not urban ops. That back
> blast tends to hurt.

>True, but that's easy enough to get around by paying attention to where you
>set it up. Fire along a street, for example, instead of across it when
you're
>near a building. Or fire from a building down into the street. If you have
>>the time to prepare a firing position, all this should not be a problem.

I seem to recall 'bowling for bunkers in 'Nam with a bipoded dragon atgm.
Tjhe trick to employing it was to be at the end of a long straight street
and set it up so that the tube went diagonaly from the corner you are on to
the corner at the farthest end of the street. Back blast is taken care up
cause its funneled back and down the side street your on. And prep time is
minimal if were comparing this to the true Dragon atgm. And I dont see why
you think its not made for urban opps. You just need to know how to employ
your weapon system. MOUT (mill opps in urban terrain) traing teasches you
this.

> And they're NOT mobile.

>The Great Dragon is obviously SR's version of the (less-than-)modern M47
>Dragon ATGM, which is portable enough to be carried and fired by a single
>soldier. Especially because it only weighs 2.75 kg (!!!), it should be
easily
>portable even if it were 3 meters long. (Though in that case you'd probably
>have problems carrying it when the wind is blowing :)

I will say that I suspect the weight is way off in the SR ruels. I've
hummped a Dragon and I got sick of it inside 10 minutes. And as for the
wind blowing you got that right. Really twists your bodies center of
gravitysince its slung accross the chest diagonaly instead of on one
shoulder. For long marches we would put them on top of our rucks and carry
on.


>That's what the integral sight on the thing does.

The real dragon doesnt have an integral sight, Matter of fact its rather
huge and comes in a padded case that you would sling opposite the missle so
that you wouldnt be toss round and round by the weight.
Message no. 23
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Wed Aug 7 13:30:01 2002
These things also take a hell of a lot of time to set up unless they are
vehicle mounted. They would be great if you had the time to set them up for
a defensive position but shadowrunners are usualy a lot more mobile. I
don't picture it as something a Sammie could pull out of his pack and fire
like a LAW...

I would beg to differ,

Then I went and got out FOF to look the darn thing up before i spoke
further. There is no way in heck that that systtem weights ion at 2.75 kgs
unless all it is is the tube, sight, and tripod. And if thats the case then
I would agree that it would take time to set it up. BUT if it wasnt and
conformed to Dragon atgm its a ,matter of unslinging it, droping the
mono/bipod and afixing the sight. Standard times got go/no go as an atgm
gunner in the army was 35 seconds inclueding sight, and off the top of me
head i cant recall how many seconds make up a turn/round but still its not
all that long.
Message no. 24
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Wed Aug 7 13:35:01 2002
According to York.GA@******.ca, on Wed, 07 Aug 2002 the word on the street was...

> These things also take a hell of a lot of time to set up unless they are
> vehicle mounted.

They are? It's not the impression I get from the operator's manual, but that's
not necessarily right ;)

> They would be great if you had the time to set them up
> for a defensive position but shadowrunners are usualy a lot more mobile.
> I don't picture it as something a Sammie could pull out of his pack and
> fire like a LAW...

Certainly, though with the rather (too) low weight of the Great Dragon, it
should really be possible when you get down to it. That said, even if it weighed
27.5 kg, a typical street sam would probably be able to fire it from the
shoulder...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Huh?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 25
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Valeu John EMFA)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Wed Aug 7 13:45:01 2002
>>> They're also pretty much for field ops, not urban ops. That back
>>> blast tends to hurt.

>>True, but that's easy enough to get around by paying attention to where
you
>>set it up. Fire along a street, for example, instead of across it when
>>you're
>>near a building. Or fire from a building down into the street. If you have
>>the time to prepare a firing position, all this should not be a problem.

>I seem to recall 'bowling for bunkers in 'Nam with a bipoded dragon atgm.
>Tjhe trick to employing it was to be at the end of a long straight street
>and set it up so that the tube went diagonaly from the corner you are on to
>the corner at the farthest end of the street. Back blast is taken care up
>cause its funneled back and down the side street your on. And prep time is
>minimal if were comparing this to the true Dragon atgm. And I dont see why
>you think its not made for urban opps. You just need to know how to employ
>your weapon system. MOUT (mill opps in urban terrain) traing teasches you
>this.

Yeah, but wasn't the attitude in Nam slightly different then your average
runner?
I think that most runners tend to minimize collateral damage, where in Nam
it really didn't matter much. These things make a big bang and cause a big
boom.
For wetwork the only things that matter are my team and the targets.
Nothing else gets in the way and no civialians are worth it.

EMFN John Valeu
-AKA- TimeKeeper
Message no. 26
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Wed Aug 7 13:45:03 2002
According to Scott Dean Peterson, on Wed, 07 Aug 2002 the word on the street was...

> I seem to recall 'bowling for bunkers in 'Nam with a bipoded dragon atgm.

??? AFAIK M47 Dragons came into use in the late 1970s; the only ATGMs used
by the US were, to the best of my knowledge, TOWs on specially-modified
UH-1s from the TOW test program, rushed in in 1972 to stop the North
Vietnamese Easter offensive.

> I will say that I suspect the weight is way off in the SR ruels.

The M47's day tracker weighs 3.1 kg and the round 11.5 kg, so that's 14.6 kg in
all. Now assuming the Great Dragon is of similar, or better, performance, I don't
think you _can_ bring the weight down by roughly a factor 5, even given 70 or 80
years :)

> And as for the
> wind blowing you got that right. Really twists your bodies center of
> gravitysince its slung accross the chest diagonaly instead of on one
> shoulder. For long marches we would put them on top of our rucks and
> carry on.

What I meant was that, if the weapon really were to weigh 2.75 kg, it'd almost
be like walking around with a large sheet of styrofoam.

> >That's what the integral sight on the thing does.
>
> The real dragon doesnt have an integral sight, Matter of fact its rather
> huge and comes in a padded case that you would sling opposite the missle
> so that you wouldnt be toss round and round by the weight.

According to the blurb in Cannon Companion, the SR version uses a re-usable
launch tube, not a disposable one like the M47. From that, I suppose the sight
is integral to the launcher (though, if you want to be pendantic about it, it can
probably be removed for servicing easily enough :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Huh?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 27
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Iridios)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Wed Aug 7 20:00:01 2002
Lone Eagle wrote:

> I would suggest that the GD is there more for completeness than anything
> else,

Or perhaps, Fields of Fire was meant to include heavier combat vehicles
such as battle tanks. Those would require weapons of the scale of the
Great Dragon.



> like the plasteel 7 catalyst in the chemistry section of man and
> machine, a substance introduced with the earliest shadowruns and never used
> since.

Probably was a writers plot device in some game and sounded like a good
idea. I like it myself, just haven't seen it put to use yet.


--
Iridios
--
From:The Top 100 Things I'd Do
If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord
(http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html)

I will not have a son. Although his laughably under-planned
attempt to usurp power would easily fail, it would provide a
fatal distraction at a crucial point in time.

Used Without Permission
Message no. 28
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Wed Aug 7 20:15:01 2002
Scott Dean Peterson writes:

> There is no way in heck that that systtem weights ion at 2.75 kgs unless
> all it is is the tube, sight, and tripod.

Gurth writes:

> The M47's day tracker weighs 3.1 kg and the round 11.5 kg, so that's 14.6
> kg in all. Now assuming the Great Dragon is of similar, or better,
> performance, I don't think you _can_ bring the weight down by roughly a
> factor 5, even given 70 or 80 years :)

>From CC, the launcher weighs in at 2.75 kg, and the missile itself at 3 kg.
That's not too bad, although the round might be a little light on.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a26 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W++ N+ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+@ 5@ X+>+++ R++ tv(-) b+ DI+++@ D-@ G+
e++>++++ h--- r+++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 29
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Wed Aug 7 20:20:02 2002
Scott Dean Peterson writes:

> There is no way in heck that that systtem weights ion at 2.75 kgs unless
> all it is is the tube, sight, and tripod. And if thats the case then I
> would agree that it would take time to set it up. BUT if it wasnt and
> conformed to Dragon atgm its a ,matter of unslinging it, droping the
> mono/bipod and afixing the sight. Standard times got go/no go as an atgm
> gunner in the army was 35 seconds inclueding sight, and off the top of me
> head i cant recall how many seconds make up a turn/round but still its not
> all that long.

1 SR Combat Turn is 3 seconds (or 3-5 if you go off the 1st Ed rules). That
makes the 35 second setup time around 10 or 11 Combat Turns, which, in my
experience, is a fairly long combat for most SR encounters.

I'm not sure what the Dragon atgm is like, but the picture in FoF of the
Great Dragon ATGM looks like a stubby launch tube with a tripod and sight
attached. Perhaps the tube extends for launching - I'm not sure.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a26 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W++ N+ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+@ 5@ X+>+++ R++ tv(-) b+ DI+++@ D-@ G+
e++>++++ h--- r+++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 30
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Wed Aug 7 20:25:03 2002
Grim Shear writes:

> <Snip Steel Lynx stuff>
>
> The second it goes up against anything heavier, it starts failing. HMG's,
> even MMG's are quite capable of doing rather nasty things to one. And all
> of this is _without_ AV ammo.

Actually, according to SR3, "vehicle armour is hardened armour, meaning that
it can deflect all damage from weapons with a Power (modified by the
vehicle's Body, but not by burst or autofire) equal to or less than the
Armour Rating". So, a Steel Lynx, with Armour 9 will halve the Power of any
non AV weapon. Thus, one needs a weapon with a _base_ power of 20 or greater
in order to damage a Steel Lynx, unless one is using AV ammo (the halving
rounds down, see p 132 of SR3). MMGs and HMGs are laughable to a Steel Lynx.
There are no non AV weapons that can damage a Steel Lynx (except perhaps for
very stong Trolls with melee weapons).

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a26 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W++ N+ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+@ 5@ X+>+++ R++ tv(-) b+ DI+++@ D-@ G+
e++>++++ h--- r+++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 31
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Wed Aug 7 20:30:01 2002
Valeu John EMFA writes:

> Yeah, but wasn't the attitude in Nam slightly different then your average
> runner? I think that most runners tend to minimize collateral damage,
> where in Nam it really didn't matter much. These things make a big bang
> and cause a big boom. For wetwork the only things that matter are my team
> and the targets. Nothing else gets in the way and no civialians are worth
> it.

Well, yes ... that's the _theory_ behind shadowrunners ... yes. But, in my
general experience, players tend to go for the "kill 'em all", or "blow the
drek up big", or "clear the block - literally" approaches far more often
than the shadowrunner stereotype might suggest.

Lets take a poll, shall we? Who's runner teams tend to operate more like a
bunker clearing crew in 'Nam than a runner team?

Mine usually do ;-).

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a26 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W++ N+ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+@ 5@ X+>+++ R++ tv(-) b+ DI+++@ D-@ G+
e++>++++ h--- r+++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 32
From: shadowrn@*********.com (-Â¥-Zeb-Â¥-)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Wed Aug 7 20:40:01 2002
<York.GA@******.ca> wrote:


> > >From: Gurth [mailto:Gurth@******.nl]
> > >The halved Power was dropped in SR2, which accounts for vehicles being
> much
> >
> > >more vulnerable under those rules, but re-instated in Rigger 2 (or 3?
I
> > >don't remember).
> >
> > Re-instated in Rigger 2
> >
> >
> >Page Reference?
> >
> >Zebulin
>
> Rigger 2 pg. 53
>

Unfortunately, I'm just not seeing where it says to halve the power of the
weapon. I do see that it shows that you should drop the Damage Level and
reduce the power by the amount of armor on the vehicle.

Halving the damage does kinda sound interesting, an Ares Predator suddenly
does 4M against any veh with armor ... heh heh heh. I like that!

Zebulin
Message no. 33
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Wed Aug 7 21:00:01 2002
Augustus writes:

> 20D antivehicular damage is quite abit... In all my years of GMing
> shadowrun (12.5 years to be exact) I can't really think of any time
> something like this would have been all that useful (maybe back in 1997
> when the PCs tried, but failed, to assassinate Lofwyr).

Coyote writes:

> These things also take a hell of a lot of time to set up unless they are
> vehicle mounted. They would be great if you had the time to set them up
> for a defensive position but shadowrunners are usualy a lot more mobile. I
> don't picture it as something a Sammie could pull out of his pack and fire
> like a LAW...

Gurth writes:

> Certainly, though with the rather (too) low weight of the Great Dragon, it
> should really be possible when you get down to it. That said, even if it
> weighed 27.5 kg, a typical street sam would probably be able to fire it
> from the shoulder...

These comments remind me of the one and only time a Great Dragon ATGM was
ever acquired and used in my games. Ever. And that's over a long period of
time with many games. The weapons are a little too far out and over the top
for most SR games. Even my "bunker clearing in 'Nam style of SR games"
<grin>.

One of my old players is a mechanised infantryman. His character is a street
sammy, and more of a skills monster than anything else (there's nothing this
character can't do), actually the character is more of a merc in my opinion,
as his cyber is secondary to his skills.

Anyway, this particular character had been looking to get ahold of a Great
Dragon ATGM for quite some time (around 1-2 years game time and
approximately the same real time). Finally, the runners were on an epic run
(the largest I've ever run, spanning 2 years real time, 6 months game time,
about 12 countries, and an awful lot of encounters). He had an opportunity
to get his grubby little mitts on a Great Dragon ATGM. So he did. He then
religiously carried it around with him pretty much everywhere (looking at
the piccy, if we assume it's collapsable, then it and a missile could more
or less fit in a standard rucksack). The character carried the Great Dragon
ATGM, a small bum bag of gear, a pistol, and often an assault rifle. I
reasoned that this was not too excessive in bulk, and the character
certainly had the strength for it.

Anyway, towards the last third of the epic run, the runners were
persuing/being persued by an Aztechnology cyberzombie and associated blood
mages through Tir Tairngire, while both sides were busy dodging Tir Ghosts.
It was one of those classic 'love triangle' things, except that all sides
knew a bit about each other, and it was mutual hate, rather than love ;-).

The runners and the cyberzombie and his team managed to meet up in the foyer
of a Portland hospital after a several block running street battle with
blood spirits and heavy weapons. The cyberzombie, complete with articulate
arm fielding a hyper velocity LMG, and two gyro mount arms fielding the same,
was on one side of the crowded (but rapidly clearing ;-)) foyer, and the
team's sammy/merc was on the other. The rest of the team and Aztech goons
were engaged out the front, or in the offices (there was evidence in the
offices). It was one of those classic John Woo style steel guitar stand offs
all done is super slow-mo. And it wasn't even planned that way.

Anyway, the cyberzombie charged into the room, took a parting shot at
another team member who was ducking into the offices, and then took stock of
the situation. The team's sammy/merc also took stock, and announced that he
was dumping his ruck sack on the ground and setting up his Great Dragon
ATGM. Everyone was incredulous. But, but their own observation, small arms
just weren't effective against this particular opponent. I warned the
sammy/merc that the backblast would probably do some severe damage, and that
more than likely half the people in the foyer (and himself) would be caught
in the primary blast when the thing detonated against the cyberzombie. He
didn't mind - he figured that he's have a better chance of surviving that
than if the cyberzombie got another go.

The next Comabt Turn's initiatve came round. The team's sammy/merc rolled 1
off his max, and the cyberzombie rolled 2 off his minimum. I had ruled that
it would take two Complex actions to setup the Great Dragon ATGM. One was
the sammy/merc's last action last turn. As fluke luck would have it, he went
first this Turn and set the thing up completely. The cyberzombie realised
what was happending (or about to happen) and charged over to the weapon
(planning on knocking it over) while blasting away at the sammy. The
cyberzombie got to about 2 m away from the ATGM, and the sammy/merc burned
half of his Karma Pool avoiding getting geeked by the 35 round onslaught.

Then the sammy/merc's second action came around. He burned the other half of
his Karma Pool. The cyberzombie burned all of his Comabt Pool (which was
quite substantial). Both resisted damage from the primary blast. The
sammy/merc resisted damage from the backblast. After the fireball had
cleared, the sammy/merc was on a Moderate wound with his back against the
office door, and the cyberzombie was on a Serious wound, on the bonnet of
his support squads' car, past the front glass windows of the hospital foyer,
out in the street.

The engagment started to clear as both sides retreated, with the PCs having
got the goods. This time...

This was, I feel, a deserved use of the Great Dragon ATGM, and it did suit
the storyline perfectly. Everyone was amazed that the player in question
announced his character was going to use the missile launcher. Everyone had
pretty much forgotten that he was still carting the thing around...

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a26 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W++ N+ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+@ 5@ X+>+++ R++ tv(-) b+ DI+++@ D-@ G+
e++>++++ h--- r+++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 34
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Valeu John EMFA)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Wed Aug 7 22:50:04 2002
>Unfortunately, I'm just not seeing where it says to halve the power of the
>weapon. I do see that it shows that you should drop the Damage Level and
>reduce the power by the amount of armor on the vehicle.

>Halving the damage does kinda sound interesting, an Ares Predator suddenly
>does 4M against any veh with armor ... heh heh heh. I like that!

Actually, the fact that it has armor halves the power. The fact that it's a
vehicle lowers the damage level one rank. So your pred will do 4L, not 4M.

EMFN John Valeu
-AKA- TimeKeeper
Message no. 35
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Thu Aug 8 04:40:01 2002
>From: York.GA@******.ca
<Snip>
>goes plink. Even a heavy pistol with AV rounds would only cause a roll of
>4M with a body of 6...not including staging if it was a really good shot.

Let's say the people shooting have a skill of 4, they add four dice of
combat pool if they're aiming at TN 4 (short range or long range with a
smartgun or short range with a smartgun and some other modifiers) that's a
50-50 chance, so they get (on average) 4 successes, staging their shot two
deadly, the helo is also rolling against 4's and will get (on average) three
successes; only enough to stage it down to serious.
At one success to stage it would drop it to light damage, which seems more
reasonable.


_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 36
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Thu Aug 8 04:50:01 2002
>From: Damion Milliken <dam01@***.edu.au>
<Snip™>
>Lets take a poll, shall we? Who's runner teams tend to operate more like a
>bunker clearing crew in 'Nam than a runner team?

Two of the runners in our "team" try to be/want to be but the rest tend to
restrain them.
The rest have been known to act like tunnel rats but...

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Message no. 37
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Thu Aug 8 04:55:01 2002
>From: -¥-Zeb-¥- <zebulingod@*****.com>
>Unfortunately, I'm just not seeing where it says to halve the power of the
>weapon. I do see that it shows that you should drop the Damage Level and
>reduce the power by the amount of armor on the vehicle.
>
>Halving the damage does kinda sound interesting, an Ares Predator suddenly
>does 4M against any veh with armor ... heh heh heh. I like that!

Vehicles section of the SR3 rules says it, I can't give the exact page but
look at shooting at vehicles or resolving damage against vehicles and I'm
sure you'll find it.

Actually an Ares Predator would do 4L damage against _any_ vehicle, if the
vehicle had armour it would do (4 - Armour)L and if that resulted in 0L or
less the round would simply bounce off.

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Message no. 38
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Thu Aug 8 05:50:01 2002
According to <zebulingod@*****.com>, on Thu, 08 Aug 2002 the word on the street
was...

> Unfortunately, I'm just not seeing where it says to halve the power of
> the weapon. I do see that it shows that you should drop the Damage Level
> and reduce the power by the amount of armor on the vehicle.

It's in SR3, on page 149. The text there is almost the same as on page 53 of Rigger 2,
but the first sentence under Attacks Against a Vehicle includes an extra bit: "the
weapon's Power is reduced by half (round down)".

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Huh?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 39
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Thu Aug 8 05:50:04 2002
According to Damion Milliken, on Thu, 08 Aug 2002 the word on the street was...

> He then religiously carried it around with him pretty much
> everywhere (looking at the piccy, if we assume it's collapsable, then it
> and a missile could more or less fit in a standard rucksack).

I tend to picture it as about the same size as the oft-mentioned M47 Dragon,
which is to say, about a meter long, with a launch tube that's 15 cm or so
across, and with only the tripod being collapsible.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Huh?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 40
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Thu Aug 8 05:50:12 2002
According to Damion Milliken, on Thu, 08 Aug 2002 the word on the street was...

> Lets take a poll, shall we? Who's runner teams tend to operate more like
> a bunker clearing crew in 'Nam than a runner team?

Mine have learned that trying to blow everything up usually results in more
dead PCs than they can afford, as the opposition usually has enough firepower
as well. They try not to get into firefights too much anymore.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Huh?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 41
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Thu Aug 8 06:35:02 2002
>From: Gurth <Gurth@******.nl>
>I tend to picture it as about the same size as the oft-mentioned M47
>Dragon,
>which is to say, about a meter long, with a launch tube that's 15 cm or so
>across, and with only the tripod being collapsible.

Call me a nasty git to my players if you wish but I have to say that I
picture it as a tube about eight or nine feet long, probably six inches in
diameter, the tripod although collapsable being bolted to the floor (or
secured in some other (more field expedient) manner) although I have to
admit that's probably more due to the stats and a chance comment than
anything else, the stats because I compared it to the Arbelast (?) which I
pictured as similar to a Stinger and the comment which was... "So it's
basically a shoulder mounted Maveric then."
the two came together to create something vaguely akin to my (somewhat hazy)
memories of Die Hard.

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 42
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Arclight)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Thu Aug 8 07:20:01 2002
At 10:32 08.08.2002 +1000, Damion Milliken wrote:

<snip>

>Lets take a poll, shall we? Who's runner teams tend to operate more like a
>bunker clearing crew in 'Nam than a runner team?
>
>Mine usually do ;-).

Depends.

When I play, I tend to equip my character with as much dope&beer ;) as the
situation allows. Typical kit is an assault rifle with 10 clips of ammo, a
pistol with 3 clips, about 6 grenades and a or two LAW and a satchel charge
(1kg c12 with timer and remote). Yes, it's a merc ;)
Most of the time I finish the run with 10 rounds fired maximum *g* Mostly
sentry removal. If the runners are detected, I react along the lines of
"hit as hard and as fast as possible", this AFAICT always works *g*

--
Arclight

"I hear voices in my head... and they don't like you!"
Message no. 43
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Thu Aug 8 07:40:01 2002
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Scott Dean Peterson [mailto:lordmountainlion@***.rr.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, 7, August, 2002 13:31 PM
>To: shadowrn@*********.com
>Subject: RE: Great Dragon
>Standard times got go/no go as an atgm
>gunner in the army was 35 seconds inclueding sight, and off the top of me
>head i cant recall how many seconds make up a turn/round but still its not
>all that long.

IIRC a combat round is 3 sec. Now if an army gunner can do it in 35 seconds
then thats 10 combat rounds... Assuming a super sam with wired reflexes can
do it in half that time its still 5 combat turns which is a hell of a lot of
time when the stuff hits the fan...


Coyote
Message no. 44
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Christian Casavant)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Thu Aug 8 08:15:00 2002
> >Lets take a poll, shall we? Who's runner teams tend to operate more like a
> >bunker clearing crew in 'Nam than a runner team?

I like my players to be discrete, but when things go bad, I expect them to
be able to dish out high volumes of effective fire.

I always play using the tenet that if you're quiet and you keep your head
down, you can operate for long times without attracting too much
attention. The authorities may not take notice if you make a run against
corporate private property where a couple of guards were wounded (or
killed) when the run went loud.

However, when city blocks are blown up, my authorities take exception and
usually start man hunts. I'm sure I'm not the only GM in which Criminal
Intelligence Divisions (ie. somewhat corrupt, political, power
brokering, Counter Shadowrunner squads) play prominent roles. I'm also
very strict when it comes to tracking down spell aura residue and the
police using ritual magic to track down Shadowrunners who have bled at the
scene of a crime.

So, the answer to you question is, I expect my players to form small
paramilitary units who will know how to employ small unit tactics to win
firefights quickly, employing SMGs, ARs, and grenades; but rarely use
them!

Xian.
Message no. 45
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Thu Aug 8 13:25:01 2002
According to Lone Eagle, on Thu, 08 Aug 2002 the word on the street was...

> Call me a nasty git to my players if you wish but I have to say that I
> picture it as a tube about eight or nine feet long

That would only be necessary if the missile itself is that long. Most
missile launch tubes are just long enough to contain the missile, as they
don't need any kind of barrel. (I am aware that ground-mount TOW launchers
have a barrel that extends beyond the missile container, but helicopter-
and AFV-carried TOWs don't, so this is really an unnecessary item, except
maybe to contain part of the backblast.)

> the tripod although collapsable being bolted to the floor
> (or secured in some other (more field expedient) manner)

Missiles are recoilless weapons (OK, so they may kick back a bit, but
nowhere near as much as a gun would) so that would also be unnecessary in
most cases.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Huh?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 46
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Thu Aug 8 13:25:05 2002
According to York.GA@******.ca, on Thu, 08 Aug 2002 the word on the street was...

> IIRC a combat round is 3 sec. Now if an army gunner can do it in 35
> seconds then thats 10 combat rounds... Assuming a super sam with wired
> reflexes can do it in half that time its still 5 combat turns which is a
> hell of a lot of time when the stuff hits the fan...

This is because the SR combat rules are for small firefights, not major battles.
Whereas an ATGM gunner IRL probably won't be using the ATGM in a situation like
most SR firefights, simply because there's no time to set the thing up.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Huh?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 47
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Thu Aug 8 14:45:01 2002
> IIRC a combat round is 3 sec. Now if an army gunner can do it in 35
> seconds
not to contradict but he said that it was the standard, meaning it's the
minimum goal the army makes you achieve, just as the standard for
donning your Gasmask is 9 seconds, sorry but a gasmask with the hood
takes 4 so that's half, lets assume that the average person that
actually is assigned to a unit where he's gotta fire, carry, and setup
these things if fairly proficient (after all he does get plenty of
practice) and will be on par with the percentage of time shaved off with
the masks, I'd say it'll run about half of that because once you get to
using something you find shortcuts and ways to make things work quicker.
Message no. 48
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Thu Aug 8 14:55:02 2002
> Missiles are recoilless weapons (OK, so they may kick back a bit, but
> nowhere near as much as a gun would) so that would also be unnecessary
in
> most cases.
I'll back that up, I've fired live AT-4 missiles and they're badass!!!
(instant stiffy for anyone that loves firepower) I figured that they'd
kick a lot but not at all, I also often wonder why the person firing the
missile doesn't get hit by any of the flamewash or whatever the proper
term is for it.......
Message no. 49
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Thu Aug 8 16:55:01 2002
Yeah, but wasn't the attitude in Nam slightly different then your average
runner?
I think that most runners tend to minimize collateral damage, where in Nam
it really didn't matter much. These things make a big bang and cause a big
boom.
For wetwork the only things that matter are my team and the targets.
Nothing else gets in the way and no civialians are worth it.

Im not saying that the attitude is a factor here. I was saying that in
urban opps if you needed a dragon that would be the way to use it. And
actualy unless you hit a pretty solid building or a vehicle the isnmt much
of a colateral damage since it uses a shaped charge designed to punch
through armor and spall liquid metal into and through everthing in the
vehicle. What causes the most damage to a tank or vehicle is when the spall
hits the ammo bin or fuel tanbks and thats the big bang.
Message no. 50
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Thu Aug 8 17:05:05 2002
> I seem to recall 'bowling for bunkers in 'Nam with a bipoded dragon atgm.

??? AFAIK M47 Dragons came into use in the late 1970s; the only ATGMs used
by the US were, to the best of my knowledge, TOWs on specially-modified
UH-1s from the TOW test program, rushed in in 1972 to stop the North
Vietnamese Easter offensive.

I'll have to go dig through some boxes in storage to find it but I have a
pic and some text that will clear this up. Either way the point is pretty
much moot since I was describing the way to employ it, not the actual
system. i just exampled it with that.

> I will say that I suspect the weight is way off in the SR ruels.

The M47's day tracker weighs 3.1 kg and the round 11.5 kg, so that's 14.6 kg
in
all. Now assuming the Great Dragon is of similar, or better, performance, I
don't
think you _can_ bring the weight down by roughly a factor 5, even given 70
or 80
years :)

As I said I think we agree here

What I meant was that, if the weapon really were to weigh 2.75 kg, it'd
almost
be like walking around with a large sheet of styrofoam.

Noted

> >That's what the integral sight on the thing does.

According to the blurb in Cannon Companion, the SR version uses a re-usable
launch tube, not a disposable one like the M47. From that, I suppose the
sight
is integral to the launcher (though, if you want to be pendantic about it,
it can probably be removed for servicing easily enough :)

I have a problem wirth this and a majority of how SR does its weapons. Too
much crunching to make them work. The whole thing about being disposable
and haveing cheap sights (like the Law and at-4) is its cost effective and
easy to mass produce, and a no brainer to use). Looking at the book I see
that they basicaly crunched the dragon/tow/and javilan into one weapon
system. (again stuff I hate about them). To me it sure looks like a Dragon
on a tripod with a fixed sight and a removable tube. They got all the best
features of all three systems and forgot that certain things dont work well
together.


Scott
Message no. 51
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Thu Aug 8 17:05:14 2002
Gurth writes:

> The M47's day tracker weighs 3.1 kg and the round 11.5 kg, so that's 14.6
> kg in all. Now assuming the Great Dragon is of similar, or better,
> performance, I don't think you _can_ bring the weight down by roughly a
> factor 5, even given 70 or 80 years :)

>From CC, the launcher weighs in at 2.75 kg, and the missile itself at 3 kg.
That's not too bad, although the round might be a little light on.


I'll stick with Gurth on this one, Ive hummped a Dragon and they are at
least 25 pounds. its a royal pain, I went to a M-203 just to ditch the damn
thing.

Scott
Message no. 52
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Thu Aug 8 17:10:02 2002
1 SR Combat Turn is 3 seconds (or 3-5 if you go off the 1st Ed rules). That
makes the 35 second setup time around 10 or 11 Combat Turns, which, in my
experience, is a fairly long combat for most SR encounters.

I'm not sure what the Dragon atgm is like, but the picture in FoF of the
Great Dragon ATGM looks like a stubby launch tube with a tripod and sight
attached. Perhaps the tube extends for launching - I'm not sure.

Well picture what the Great Dragon looks like except ditch the tripod, add a
mono-bipod hinged at the front, a foam pad on the front like the rear and
then a smaller sight. To employ it you unslig it, kick the pod down attach
the sight, preform batteries check and then track the target from (usualy) a
sitting poostion and fire.
Message no. 53
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Thu Aug 8 17:40:02 2002
IIRC a combat round is 3 sec. Now if an army gunner can do it in 35 seconds
then thats 10 combat rounds... Assuming a super sam with wired reflexes can
do it in half that time its still 5 combat turns which is a hell of a lot of
time when the stuff hits the fan...

Never said it was easy. It was supposed to be a defensive weapon for the
rolling hills of Europe. But if its like the dragon i know you do carry it
and can employ it in the offesive but i wouldnt want to.

Scott
Message no. 54
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Thu Aug 8 17:45:01 2002
This is because the SR combat rules are for small firefights, not major
battles.
Whereas an ATGM gunner IRL probably won't be using the ATGM in a situation
like
most SR firefights, simply because there's no time to set the thing up.

Good point, but I have a thought. The Army Dragon can be employed in direct
combat as long as the sight is attached before had. Its not reccomended
cause its expensive and senstive but basicaly, you'd unsling it, go prone
and fire.

Scott
Message no. 55
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Thu Aug 8 17:50:01 2002
not to contradict but he said that it was the standard, meaning it's the
minimum goal the army makes you achieve,

True

lets assume that the average person thatactually is assigned to a unit where
he's gotta fire, carry, and setup these things if fairly proficient (after
all he does get plenty of practice)

drilling with an empty tube and sight makes it easier but the big thing to
remeber and I didnt mention this is that most of the time on a movement to
contact the tube is on top of the ruck sack cinched down by grav straps and
the sight is in a bag on the opposite side from the 'protective' mask. So
its all subjective. I mean we went to the range and out of a battlion of
troops of which about 30-45 carried one or is a trade off man, only 2-3 got
to do live fires. And the most practice you get is when you dig in, lay in
the tube, set up range cards and wait to get hit mby oppfore, and in those
situations you would go to your backup, like an M-16 or something along
those lines.

I'd say it'll run about half of that because once you get to
using something you find shortcuts and ways to make things work quicker.

Debatable but someone mentioned improved relexes and such. if someone who
is good at crunching numbers figure out what the 35 seconds trans late
into, dived by 2 and maybe I might agree:) Im just kaded because of having
had to hump one:)

Scott
Message no. 56
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Thu Aug 8 17:55:01 2002
I'll back that up, I've fired live AT-4 missiles and they're badass!!!
(instant stiffy for anyone that loves firepower) I figured that they'd
kick a lot but not at all, I also often wonder why the person firing the
missile doesn't get hit by any of the flamewash or whatever the proper
term is for it.......

The motor is two stage. One small blast kicks it out and as the warhead
arm,s at minimum safe distance the main motor kicks in.
Message no. 57
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Bandwidth Oracle)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Thu Aug 8 17:55:04 2002
>
>
> This is because the SR combat rules are for small firefights, not major
> battles.
> Whereas an ATGM gunner IRL probably won't be using the ATGM in a
> situation
> like
> most SR firefights, simply because there's no time to set the thing up.
>
> Good point, but I have a thought. The Army Dragon can be employed in
> direct
> combat as long as the sight is attached before had. Its not reccomended
> cause its expensive and senstive but basicaly, you'd unsling it, go
> prone
> and fire.
>
> Scott

I don't know the most about these things, but is this something a team
could set<br> up?
For example one person being in charge of the tripod and such?
Message no. 58
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Thu Aug 8 18:00:01 2002
-----Original Message-----
From: shadowrn-admin@*********.com
[mailto:shadowrn-admin@*********.com]On Behalf Of Bandwidth Oracle
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 3:56 PM
To: shadowrn@*********.com

> Good point, but I have a thought. The Army Dragon can be employed in
> direct
> combat as long as the sight is attached before had. Its not reccomended
> cause its expensive and senstive but basicaly, you'd unsling it, go
> prone
> and fire.
>
> Scott

I don't know the most about these things, but is this something a team
could set<br> up?
For example one person being in charge of the tripod and such?

Its employed by one man. Its not like a mortar where you need at least 2-3
man crew and a ploting team of at least 2.Ill have to go dig out me manuals
but Im pretty sure its a one man opp. Maybe in defensive you might have one
to help reload and all, like from a stack of missle fed tubes, but Im pretty
sure its 1 man.

Been about 11 years since I humped one so Im a biut fuzzy on that point.

Scott
Message no. 59
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Thu Aug 8 20:20:02 2002
Scott Dean Peterson writes:

> Gurth writes:
>
> > The M47's day tracker weighs 3.1 kg and the round 11.5 kg, so that's 14.6
> > kg in all. Now assuming the Great Dragon is of similar, or better,
> > performance, I don't think you _can_ bring the weight down by roughly a
> > factor 5, even given 70 or 80 years :)
>
> From CC, the launcher weighs in at 2.75 kg, and the missile itself at 3 kg.
> That's not too bad, although the round might be a little light on.
>
> I'll stick with Gurth on this one, Ive hummped a Dragon and they are at
> least 25 pounds. its a royal pain, I went to a M-203 just to ditch the damn
> thing.

Hey, one note, Scott: would you mind properly quoting other people's posts
when you reply? As you can see from above, it looks like you wrote
everything after what Gurth said, when in fact the "From CC" line is mine.

A dragon ATGM weighs in at ~25 lb (=>11.33981 kg) total. A SR Great Dragon
ATGM weighs in at 5.75 kg total. That's around half the weight of a dragon
ATGM. Is that a fair reduction, considering?

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a26 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W++ N+ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+@ 5@ X+>+++ R++ tv(-) b+ DI+++@ D-@ G+
e++>++++ h--- r+++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 60
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Fri Aug 9 05:50:34 2002
According to Scott Dean Peterson, on Thu, 08 Aug 2002 the word on the street was...

> Debatable but someone mentioned improved relexes and such. if someone
> who is good at crunching numbers figure out what the 35 seconds trans
> late into, dived by 2 and maybe I might agree:) Im just kaded because
> of having had to hump one:)

The average person has initiative 4+1D6, meaning they'll never get more than one
action per 3-second turn. If the time required to set up an M47 is 35 seconds,
figure that's 12 turns, which means 12 Complex Actions (because of the one action
per turn). Now if you have a street sam with initiative 10+3D6, this sam will have
an average initiative of 20.5, a minimum of 13, and a maximum of 28 (all
unwounded, of course). So that's at least 2 actions and at most 3 actions per
turn; for ease, call it 2.5 actions per turn. The sam still requires 12 Complex
Actions to set up the launcher, but can do this in 12 / 2.5 = 4.8 turns. That's
equivalent to 14.4 seconds. Rounding off the numbers, the street sam could set up
the launcher in roughly half the time it takes an average person.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Huh?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 61
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Fri Aug 9 05:50:42 2002
According to Damion Milliken, on Fri, 09 Aug 2002 the word on the street was...

> > > The M47's day tracker weighs 3.1 kg and the round 11.5 kg, so that's
> > > 14.6 kg in all.
>
> A dragon ATGM weighs in at ~25 lb (=>11.33981 kg) total. A SR Great
> Dragon ATGM weighs in at 5.75 kg total. That's around half the weight of
> a dragon ATGM. Is that a fair reduction, considering?

You're forgetting the sight unit, which, as I originally pointed out, weighs
3.1 kg (according to the US Army; I've never had one in my hands :) but is a
piece of 1970s technology. However, as it's an optical device, I don't think
there's much that can be done to lighten the lenses, or the batteries; only
the electronics could shrink and lose weight, I suppose.

Putting it together, I suppose 2.75 kg is a sort of OK weight for just the
empty launcher (sight plus reusable tube), but 3 kg for the missile is rather
light.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Huh?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 62
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Fri Aug 9 06:45:04 2002
>From: Gurth <Gurth@******.nl>
>That would only be necessary if the missile itself is that long. Most
>missile launch tubes are just long enough to contain the missile, as they
>don't need any kind of barrel. (I am aware that ground-mount TOW launchers
>have a barrel that extends beyond the missile container, but helicopter-
>and AFV-carried TOWs don't, so this is really an unnecessary item, except
>maybe to contain part of the backblast.)

The M72 L.A.W. "unfolds" about 2/3 its original length from each end, some
to funnel the backblast, some to provide a degree of guidance to the rocket.
The problem, if I understand it correctly, with guided munitions launched
from a tube is two fold, firstly, except in very unusual cases the guidance
fins are folded over against the body of the rocket before launch, as these
provide most of the lift which keeps the rocket airborne (even if it's
indirect by ensuring that the motor points a tiny bit downwards all of the
time) and the fins take an amount of time to deploy the rocket tends to drop
quite a lot. With aircraft mounted devices this isn't that much of a
problem, the drop can be accounted for, corrected for... so the T.O.W.s on a
Huey Cobra are in tubes only a couple of inches longer than the rocket. With
ground based systems there's a lot less space for the rocket to drop in, you
really don't want it hitting the deck only meters ahead of you if you can
help it, allowing the rocket to accelerate while still inside the launch
tube is one form of counter to this.
The second problem is that being fin guided the rocket needs to be
travelling at a minimum speed before control is acheived again this is not
that much of a problem for airborne platforms, gravity can take the rocket
if it wants because there is space for it to drop into, the ground based
system can't be allowed to drop far so it makes sense to give it a real
physical guidance system until it reaches at least nearly operating speed.
The faster the rocket travels the smaller its fins need to be and the
quicker they can deploy, therefore the shorter your physical guide needs to
be, the heavier the rocket is the lower its maximum power to weight ratio
and the slower it will travel, as most of the weight components of the
rocket are dependent on the charge it carries the higher the damage code the
longer the tube needs to be.
It's an over simplistic way of looking at things I know but...

BTW it is interesting to note that the kick on a man portable rocket
launcher can be huge, the German Panzershrek was apparently almost
unmanagable, the original American Bazuka not much better. The trade off
seems to be between "recoil" and operator comfort, the backwash of the
missile is going to envelope the operator, the panzershrek had a sheild to
stop this which was the cause of the kick, the bazuka had a dome muzzle IIRC
which was almost as bad, the law has virtually nothing (and therefore
vitually no kick) but the more complex and fragile parts of the unit become
the more protection they need...

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Message no. 63
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Fri Aug 9 07:00:01 2002
>From: Gurth <Gurth@******.nl>
<Snip> but 3 kg for the missile is rather
>light.

I'm not sure...
IIRC the formula for the damage code of explosives is:

(Rating x (rt)kilograms)D

If we assume that the explosive in the Great Dragon is less stable than
standard plastics you should be able to boost the rating to maybe 14, 15?
more bang for your buck as it were.

So if we make it out of rating 15 explosive we'll need 1.7 (recurring) kg of
charge to get our 20D, use Boron composite for the casing and the conical
charge seat, that's going to give maybe just under a kilo for the motor and
guidance system...

Now of course that would cost big-style but the expense of boron composite
is predominantly in the proccess so...

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Message no. 64
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Fri Aug 9 10:55:01 2002
Hey, one note, Scott: would you mind properly quoting other people's posts
when you reply? As you can see from above, it looks like you wrote
everything after what Gurth said, when in fact the "From CC" line is mine.

>>sorry a bit rusty to the regs on this list, been ages you know:)

A dragon ATGM weighs in at ~25 lb (=>11.33981 kg) total. A SR Great Dragon
ATGM weighs in at 5.75 kg total. That's around half the weight of a dragon
ATGM. Is that a fair reduction, considering?

>>Let me think. everything now adays is going to spun or woven carbon
filaments. Tech we didnt have back then. Or at least could manufacture in
the quantities the Gov. would need it. I would say it could be done in the
most recent version of the game, since nano tech is now posible. But even
so the missle weight wouldnt be dropped much cause solid propellant would
not be reduced and any weight loss that was saved would go into the tracker
and shape charge of the warhead. The resoning behind this is that 'well
they have humpped it for how many decades (1970-2060 or there abouts) why
drop the weright since we can use the weight to make it more deadly. Thats
the 'Puzzel Pallace' -Pentagon- way of thinking. Anyone have any doubt of
that go watch that movie about the building of the Bradly Fighting vehicle
with Kelsy Grammer. Pentagon Wars I think it was.

One thing were forgetting here and I just stumbled onto it as I was reading
the CC for the first time (yes Im behind the curve-was sick for a year-tumor
and what haveyou) the weapons are supposedly a 'representative version' of
the catagory of weapons. So if you wanted a lighter Dragon you could
probably find one. I dont know what started this thread but I love this
kind of chat. Im revamping the Tarot FireArms catalog to cover situations
like these.


Scott
Message no. 65
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Fri Aug 9 11:05:01 2002
According to Scott Dean Peterson, on Thu, 08 Aug 2002 the word on the street
was...

> Debatable but someone mentioned improved relexes and such. if someone
> who is good at crunching numbers figure out what the 35 seconds trans
> late into, dived by 2 and maybe I might agree:) Im just kaded because
> of having had to hump one:)

The average person has initiative 4+1D6, meaning they'll never get more than
one
action per 3-second turn. If the time required to set up an M47 is 35
seconds,
figure that's 12 turns, which means 12 Complex Actions (because of the one
action
per turn). Now if you have a street sam with initiative 10+3D6, this sam
will have
an average initiative of 20.5, a minimum of 13, and a maximum of 28 (all
unwounded, of course). So that's at least 2 actions and at most 3 actions
per
turn; for ease, call it 2.5 actions per turn. The sam still requires 12
Complex
Actions to set up the launcher, but can do this in 12 / 2.5 = 4.8 turns.
That's
equivalent to 14.4 seconds. Rounding off the numbers, the street sam could
set up
the launcher in roughly half the time it takes an average person.

>>>>>>Look at the big head on Gurth!!! Now I know why I switced from
microbiology to medical anthropology. No need for math and since I have 8
orders of magnitude in error doing numbers this is the thing for me. So we
got it down to 5 turns on average, thats smoking when you consider that to
training standards the tube is slung and the sight is inside the bag. I
think the unofficail 'Got Tube' time was around 22-24 seconds from that
starting position. but in most cases unless your in a defensive position
the tubes on your ruck and cinched tight.

Now if I recall (im just now updating my book collections and learning 3rd
ed ruels, alot can happen in 5 turns. So it comes down to is there another
way to acheive the goal of the GD buy other means, in the offensive?
Message no. 66
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Fri Aug 9 11:05:05 2002
You're forgetting the sight unit, which, as I originally pointed out, weighs
3.1 kg (according to the US Army; I've never had one in my hands :) but is a
piece of 1970s technology. However, as it's an optical device, I don't think
there's much that can be done to lighten the lenses, or the batteries; only
the electronics could shrink and lose weight, I suppose.

Putting it together, I suppose 2.75 kg is a sort of OK weight for just the
empty launcher (sight plus reusable tube), but 3 kg for the missile is
rather
light.

>>>>>what this all boils down to is that when you try and ground SR weapons
in reality the game has a serious problem. I realize that balance and
mechanics play alot with it but it doesnt take a super brain to surf the web
anmd find this info and recoird it correctly.

Scott
Message no. 67
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Fri Aug 9 11:15:05 2002
>I think the unofficail 'Got Tube' time was around 22-24 seconds from that
>starting position. but in most cases unless your in a defensive position
>the tubes on your ruck and cinched tight.
>
>Now if I recall (im just now updating my book collections and learning 3rd
>ed ruels, alot can happen in 5 turns. So it comes down to is there another
>way to acheive the goal of the GD buy other means, in the offensive?

Mount it on a drone

Coyote
Message no. 68
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Fri Aug 9 11:35:01 2002
The M72 L.A.W. "unfolds" about 2/3 its original length from each end, some
to funnel the backblast, some to provide a degree of guidance to the rocket.

>>>>um can we stay current and get off the LAW back to AT-4's the reason is
that the tech level of the at-4 is most representative of currant at
weapons. Yeah yeah I know FoF has them in there but as Ive said before a
pet gripe I have. The one thing Ill point out about the Law in Fof is that
the pistol grip is from the M-202 4shot flame missle unit. Think Rae Don
Chong in Comando. on a real law the is a flip up sight and a bar you
depress to fire(about the end of the front tube. Now the M-202 is an
awesome weapon in theory. The missles (rockets et all) carried a mix of
napatha and something I cant recall, and was made to take the place of thje
Flame Thrower from ww2 on up. They were unguided rockets, and the sighting
system was simple but 4 rounds out inside a few second would put some hurt
on a bunker. The best thing was you could hit them from 200 meters out as
opposed to 30. That and not have your ammunition blow up on your back.

The problem, if I understand it correctly, with guided munitions launched
from a tube is two fold, firstly, except in very unusual cases the guidance
fins are folded over against the body of the rocket before launch, as these
provide most of the lift which keeps the rocket airborne (even if it's
indirect by ensuring that the motor points a tiny bit downwards all of the
time) and the fins take an amount of time to deploy the rocket tends to drop
quite a lot.

>>>>>Whats the ruel on pic files being sent to the list. The reason is I
have a merchandizers file on the tow and pidrago which are contorlled by
jets of gas as it flies. They have fins but thats just stability. The way
the systems work is that there is a homing sensor in the butt end of the
missle. The sight has crosshairs on it, and communicates with the tow or
dragon by way of two tiny wirse that run from the missle to the tube and
then to the sight. You just have to keep the sight on the target and the
homing sensor and sight do the rest. We had a live fire in Korea and got to
fire off about 5-6 of them. Immagine a steady roaring of the motor with a
series of high pitched popings as the missle and the sight change the
trajectory to hit the moving target.

snip

The second problem is that being fin guided the rocket needs to be
travelling at a minimum speed before control is acheived

>>> I seem to recall it was distance traveled which was measured by
sensor/homer interaction.

BTW it is interesting to note that the kick on a man portable rocket
launcher can be huge,

snip

>>>>> old tech old ways of doing things. It has been my experience (panama
and saudi and Korea) that when a troopie fires an AT-4 or any of the other
weapons like this, by the time they get over the rush from the engagement
the recoil is forgotten. More a thing like 'Holy shit that was cool I just
hit something and man did it blow'

Something else I wanted to point out the MAW the Arbelast in FoF is a
bastrad mix of the Israile B-300 and the German Carl Gustaf. Again a
crunched weapon system.
Message no. 69
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Fri Aug 9 11:40:01 2002
If we assume that the explosive in the Great Dragon is less stable than
standard plastics you should be able to boost the rating to maybe 14, 15?
more bang for your buck as it were.

>>>>I think its HE and not plastic explosive.

snip

use Boron composite for the casing

>>>>spun woven kevlar in the AT-4 if I recall correctly but yes its a
lightweight polymere.

conical charge seat

>>>>If you mean the shape chatrge its just as you say but there are
veriations on a theam. Some ar flat plates, others like frisbees. The HE
sits behind the shape charge and when it detonates if turns it into a molten
jet of what ever the plate is made of, impacts the armor (this is why
reactive armor was developed-to counter shape charges) 'melts' through it
(simplistic explination of the process}, and spalls the hell out of
everything inside. But I seem torecall mentioning this fact the other day.

Scott
Message no. 70
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Fri Aug 9 11:50:01 2002
>Now if I recall (im just now updating my book collections and learning 3rd
>ed ruels, alot can happen in 5 turns. So it comes down to is there another
>way to acheive the goal of the GD buy other means, in the offensive?

Mount it on a drone

>>>>What I meant was, what other weapons or spells could accomplish the same
thing without the inheriant issues of the GD. Like 10 kilos of Plastique or
vehicle ram spell with serious drain, et all

Interestingly the US Army has what it calls 'Off road at mine' its esentualy
a at weapon fixed in a position by field expediant means and has a sensor
that you set on the opposide of the road. Tank drives by, breaks the beam
and the mine fires the missle usualy into the tracks. Its not a faveorite
weapon and most are early 80's stock and overseas in Germany. It was a way
to act as a force multiplire in an anti armor ambush or to protech dead
space where a tank could get 'hulled down' and free fire on your position.

Scott
Message no. 71
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Paul J. Adam)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Fri Aug 9 17:45:06 2002
In article <000c01c23f0d$92503550$6400a8c0@******>, Derek Hyde
<dmhyde@***.net> writes
>I'll back that up, I've fired live AT-4 missiles and they're badass!!!
>(instant stiffy for anyone that loves firepower) I figured that they'd
>kick a lot but not at all, I also often wonder why the person firing the
>missile doesn't get hit by any of the flamewash or whatever the proper
>term is for it.......

Fired the Carl Gustav a few times. Lots of shockwave but no recoil or
flame (but the backblast is _vicious_)

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 72
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Martin Little)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Fri Aug 9 17:55:01 2002
On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Paul J. Adam wrote:

> In article <000c01c23f0d$92503550$6400a8c0@******>, Derek Hyde
> <dmhyde@***.net> writes
> >I'll back that up, I've fired live AT-4 missiles and they're badass!!!
> >(instant stiffy for anyone that loves firepower) I figured that they'd
> >kick a lot but not at all, I also often wonder why the person firing the
> >missile doesn't get hit by any of the flamewash or whatever the proper
> >term is for it.......
>
> Fired the Carl Gustav a few times. Lots of shockwave but no recoil or
> flame (but the backblast is _vicious_)
>

Now you just stand there with your eyes open, and I'm going to hit you as
hard as I can with this pillow in the face :)
Message no. 73
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Sat Aug 10 06:25:06 2002
According to Scott Dean Peterson, on Fri, 09 Aug 2002 the word on the street was...

> Now if I recall (im just now updating my book collections and learning
> 3rd ed ruels, alot can happen in 5 turns.

It's still far too long to do inside an SR firefight, because most of those are
over in that sort of time, if not less.

> So it comes down to is there
> another way to acheive the goal of the GD buy other means, in the
> offensive?

What do you mean?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Huh?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 74
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Sat Aug 10 15:45:02 2002
Scott said,

> > So it comes down to is there
> > another way to acheive the goal of the GD buy other means, in the
> > offensive?

Gurth replied,

> What do you mean?

Well the idea is that if you need to use something as powerfull as a great
dragon but the time is an issue or employment of the weapon is not
feasaible, you need to have a back up of ideas on how to do the damage of
ther great dragon without useing it.

ex: While humping the GD around you come face to face with an soft skinned
armoerd vehicle. Cant get the GD employed but you have a satchel charge of
plastic explosives set preset to a certain time and you rip the fireing cord
and toss it at the vehicle.

Something I try and do when I create a charecter is I tend to buy my weapons
in such a way that it becomes a tripple redundancy issue. LMG, AR, SMG
Pistol. This way Im carrying everything but each weapon has a reason for
being carried. LMG for initial heavy fire power, AR as a Back up to that,
SMG for close quarters and a pistol for 'oh shits' while Im reloading.
Message no. 75
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Sun Aug 11 02:10:01 2002
Scott Dean Peterson writes:

> Something I try and do when I create a charecter is I tend to buy my
> weapons in such a way that it becomes a tripple redundancy issue. LMG, AR,
> SMG Pistol. This way Im carrying everything but each weapon has a reason
> for being carried. LMG for initial heavy fire power, AR as a Back up to
> that, SMG for close quarters and a pistol for 'oh shits' while Im
> reloading.

...And it's great for that stylish Duke Nukem look too... <grin>

I can still remember a character a player once created in my game that had
one of every class of weapon, and about four different sets of armour. And a
Strength of 4. The other players nicknamed his character "Duke Nukem", as he
couldn't possibly carry all that gear, let alone fit it on his person
anywhere. Rather like the good old Duke. Just where _does_ he keep all those
guns when he's not shooting them? :-)

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a26 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W++ N+ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+@ 5@ X+>+++ R++ tv(-) b+ DI+++@ D-@ G+
e++>++++ h--- r+++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 76
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Sun Aug 11 06:50:01 2002
According to Damion Milliken, on Sun, 11 Aug 2002 the word on the street was...

> I can still remember a character a player once created in my game that
> had one of every class of weapon, and about four different sets of
> armour.

IMHO this is not a bad idea.

> And a Strength of 4. The other players nicknamed his character
> "Duke Nukem", as he couldn't possibly carry all that gear, let alone fit
> it on his person anywhere.

Trying to take everything along "just in case," though, is :)

It seems to me that, as a shadowrunner likely to get into fights, you'd do
well to acquire a collection of different types of weapon and armor, so you
can pick the ones that will be best for the situation you're going to go into.
If someone hires you to start a big firefight, you don't want to tell them,
"OK, Mr. Johnson, we'll take the job. Will pistols do?"

> Rather like the good old Duke. Just where
> _does_ he keep all those guns when he's not shooting them? :-)

He must have a Bag of Holding, I suppose :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Huh?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 77
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Sun Aug 11 13:35:01 2002
Gurth said

> It seems to me that, as a shadowrunner likely to get into
> fights, you'd do well to acquire a collection of different types of weapon
>and armor, so you can pick the ones that will be best for the situation
>>>>>you're going to go into.

Scott replies.

This is a sound theory. Line units dont normaly have access to this type of
multiple weapon useage but from Rangers on up to Opperators they do. One of
the hallmarks of any of those units is that they get enough back ground
intel and such things as to be able to custom taylor individual weapons and
crew served support weapons (pluss cross loading) to increase (fore
multipliers)the success of the mission. An example of this was seen in
black hawk down. The delta guys had a serious mix of individual weapons,
the two snipers that fast roped down to the chopper had a mix (even
different sniper weapons (M4 carbone with silencer and such, and M-14 battle
rifle tricked out for sniper work, plus smg's and side arms) of weapons.

I would liken Runners as opperators and with includeiong magic matrix over
watch with wide selection of weapons to ensure successful runs.

Scott
Message no. 78
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Mon Aug 12 04:45:01 2002
>From: "Scott Dean Peterson" <lordmountainlion@***.rr.com>
>use Boron composite for the casing
>
> >>>>spun woven kevlar in the AT-4 if I recall correctly but yes its a
>lightweight polymere.

So update the tech, spun woven kevlar is weaker and heavier than Boron
composite IIRC.

>conical charge seat
>
> >>>>If you mean the shape chatrge its just as you say but there are
>veriations on a theam. Some ar flat plates, others like frisbees. The HE
>sits behind the shape charge <Snip™>

Uh?
The HE sits behind the charge? the HE is the charge surely!
A cone of material supports the explosive (the seat) the explosive, (also a
hollow cone) sits inside the seat with the open end facing forward. The cone
"focuses" the energy of the explosives forward into the centre where you get
a column of high pressure, high energy gas, that melts/burns through the
target and sprays vapour further in, in the case of steel armour plate the
Panzershrek could punch through 200mm of armour IIRC and spray the inside of
the vehicle with that steel vapour. Sometimes I understand a further cone of
light material, considerably weaker than the seat was placed inside the HE
cone to kick start the vapour but I thought that was less effective and got
abandoned.

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Message no. 79
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Mon Aug 12 05:20:01 2002
>From: "Scott Dean Peterson" <lordmountainlion@***.rr.com>
>Well the idea is that if you need to use something as powerfull as a great
>dragon but the time is an issue or employment of the weapon is not
>feasaible, you need to have a back up of ideas on how to do the damage of
>ther great dragon without useing it.

Either a few kgs of c12, or alternatively run like hell!

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Message no. 80
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Mon Aug 12 05:25:01 2002
>From: Damion Milliken <dam01@***.edu.au>
>I can still remember a character a player once created in my game that had
>one of every class of weapon, and about four different sets of armour. And
>a
>Strength of 4. The other players nicknamed his character "Duke Nukem", as
>he
>couldn't possibly carry all that gear, let alone fit it on his person
>anywhere. Rather like the good old Duke. Just where _does_ he keep all
>those
>guns when he's not shooting them? :-)

One of the great mysteries of the universe my friend ;-)

the ammo's more interesting, maybe that's why he so popular with the babes,
"Oh Duke, is that an RPG in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me?"
"Its an RPG."

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Message no. 81
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Mon Aug 12 05:35:06 2002
According to Lone Eagle, on Mon, 12 Aug 2002 the word on the street was...

> The HE sits behind the charge? the HE is the charge surely!
> A cone of material supports the explosive (the seat) the explosive, (also
> a hollow cone) sits inside the seat with the open end facing forward. The
> cone "focuses" the energy of the explosives forward into the centre where
> you get a column of high pressure, high energy gas, that melts/burns
> through the target and sprays vapour further in

Almost right, except that the cone isn't vaporized -- not even melted, in
fact. The high pressure from the explosive allows it to be deformed as if
it were liquid, but it's always a solid. (This was proven by tests with
these cones sawed into quarters: separate pieces, corresponding to the
sections into which the cone was cut, were retrieved after firing. If the
material had melted, they should have fused together.)

Same with the armor plate material: this "flows" away from the penetrator
like a liquid, but is also still a solid. All this happens because of the
extremely high velocity (~8,000 m/s) with which the collision between the
two takes place.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Huh?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 82
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Mon Aug 12 10:15:00 2002
Eagle said,

> So update the tech, spun woven Kevlar is weaker and heavier
> than Boron
> composite IIRC.

Maybe I'm slow but wtf does iirc mean? And what do you think is better
updated tech than boron, Kevlar or composite polymers?

<snip big explanation on what the heck a shape charge is made of and how it
is set up>


I realize what your saying, I just got the plate and HE mixed up but I knew
what you were saying. Was tired and didn't check the way I wrote it.
Message no. 83
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Mon Aug 12 10:15:04 2002
I said,

> you need to have a back up of ideas on how to do
> the damage of
> >there great dragon without using it.

Lone Eagle said,

> Either a few kgs of c12, or alternatively run like hell!

Exactly what I was thinking when I wrote it but if you haven't seen it yet I
posted another idea on triple redundancy.
Message no. 84
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Mon Aug 12 10:20:01 2002
> According to Lone Eagle, on Mon, 12 Aug 2002 the word on the
> street was...

<snip big explanation of shape charges again>

Gurth said made his correction to Eagles explanation

<snip>

I just love this sort of thing. Do I need to go get my Armored Warfare Hard
Back book and quote it ?

Heh.
Message no. 85
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Graht)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Mon Aug 12 10:25:01 2002
At 08:16 AM 8/12/2002 -0600, Scott Dean Peterson wrote:

>Maybe I'm slow but wtf does iirc mean?

If I Remember Correctly.

To Life,
-Graht
ShadowRN Assistant Fearless Leader II
http://www.graht.com
--
Message no. 86
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Mon Aug 12 11:05:01 2002
>From: "Scott Dean Peterson" <lordmountainlion@***.rr.com>
> > So update the tech, spun woven Kevlar is weaker and heavier
> > than Boron
> > composite IIRC.
>
>Maybe I'm slow but wtf does iirc mean? And what do you think is better
>updated tech than boron, Kevlar or composite polymers?

IIRC = If I Remember/Recall Correctly.

You said that the casing was Kevlar composite, I suggested updating the tech
to Boron composite that was all.
It may be that by the 2060's the tech will have advanced further and we'll
be thinking fifth or sixth generation advanced composites I was just saying
that the weight could be reduced with more advanced materials...

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Message no. 87
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Mon Aug 12 11:15:01 2002
>From: "Scott Dean Peterson" <lordmountainlion@***.rr.com>
> > Either a few kgs of c12, or alternatively run like hell!
>
>Exactly what I was thinking when I wrote it but if you haven't seen it yet
>I
>posted another idea on triple redundancy.

Apologies, I'm out of sync on time and answer my mail en-bloc first thing in
the morning, I reply as I read so I answered the initial (I think) after you
posted the follow-up but before I read it.

Triple redundancy is all very well, but I don't think it applies to things
like the GD in most cases, IMHO (In My Humble Opinion :-).) if you need to
build a redundancy for weapons like that then its time to retire, maybe to
the Zurich Orbital.
My character has access to a phenominal range of weapons but he tends only
to carry a few on a job, a rifle, or a shotgun if he expects CQB, a pair of
caseless, subsonic, silenced Walther PB-120s (the ultimate sneaky pistol)
and his katana. If I expected a tank I'd organise heavy firepower on
overwatch, beyond that... sneak or run like hell.

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Message no. 88
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Mon Aug 12 11:25:01 2002
Lone Eagle said,

> It may be that by the 2060's the tech will have advanced
> further and we'll
> be thinking fifth or sixth generation advanced composites I
> was just saying
> that the weight could be reduced with more advanced materials...


I said before when I was talking about the dragon in the US Army, that since
the troops are used to carrying the weapon system at that weight, odds are
that any reduction due to the tube being made lighter would be shifted to
the warhead of the missile. Same weight, but the warhead is more powerful
and the tube is still; lighter.
Message no. 89
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Mon Aug 12 11:55:04 2002
>From: "Scott Dean Peterson" <lordmountainlion@***.rr.com>
>I said before when I was talking about the dragon in the US Army, that
>since
>the troops are used to carrying the weapon system at that weight, odds are
>that any reduction due to the tube being made lighter would be shifted to
>the warhead of the missile. Same weight, but the warhead is more powerful
>and the tube is still; lighter.

But you don't over engineer devices like that much, granted if the tanks
you're likely to face are loaded with 150mm of armour plate on their flanks
you give it enough power to blow through 200mm but if you simply take weight
off the rocket and add it to the warhead then two things happen;
a, you have problems with guidance...etc because the missile is nose heavy.
b, more explosive weight in the warhead means more explosive, IIRC shaped
charges have an optimum explosive thickness (which may depend on the
explosive used but...) in order to maintain that thickness but add more
explosive you have to increase the diameter and height of the cone, that
increases the diameter of the munition which increases the diameter of the
launcher... what you get is a lot of even more annoyed grunts who're being
blown around by the wind on this huge tube.

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Message no. 90
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Mon Aug 12 11:55:10 2002
>
> >From: "Scott Dean Peterson" <lordmountainlion@***.rr.com>
> > > Either a few kgs of c12, or alternatively run like hell!
> >
> >Exactly what I was thinking when I wrote it but if you
> haven't seen it yet
You really are missing some of my posts I think.

> Triple redundancy is all very well, but I don't think it
> applies to things
> like the GD in most cases, IMHO (In My Humble Opinion :-).)
> if you need to
> build a redundancy for weapons like that then its time to
> retire, maybe to
> the Zurich Orbital.

The point I was trying to make was that as an individual or as a runner team
the ability to be able to deliver that type of damage could be spread out
and used. Be it a spell, some plastique or other ideas. I have a tendency
to throw a wide variety of stuff at my players and they have learned to
carry stuff to cover all situations that they have run into in the past.

> My character has access to a phenomenal range of weapons but
> he tends only
> to carry a few on a job

This is exactly what I was saying before, LMG, AR, SMG/shotgun and pistol.
Covers every situation from 800 meter or so. down to point blank.

> If I expected a tank I'd organize heavy firepower on
> over watch, beyond that... sneak or run like hell.

But see you are doing what I suggested. You have a set of ideas to
compensate for the lack of a GD.
Message no. 91
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Mon Aug 12 12:05:04 2002
Eagle said,

<snip>

> if you
> simply take weight
> off the rocket and add it to the warhead then two things happen;
> a, you have problems with guidance...etc because the missile
> is nose heavy.

Not necessarily. These guys who make these things aren't that stupid. And
also lets take the upgrade from Dragon to PIP Dragon (product improved).
The missile was give a pre penetrate for handing reactive armor. They got
the 'room' for it by a smaller lighter sighing system and modifications to
the mono/bipod.

> b, more explosive weight in the warhead means more explosive,

Yeah and then you make it a top attack missile that targets the tank and
then pops up on terminal velocity and hits the top of the turret. A shape
charge is fine for head on shots but the more explosives in a top attack
will help (to some degree) to cook off the tanks own ammo.

<snip>

>what you get is a lot of even more annoyed grunts
> who're being
> blown around by the wind on this huge tube.

No you don't the tube diameter doesn't change nor the length. the changes
are to the missile itself.
Message no. 92
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Mon Aug 12 12:20:01 2002
>From: "Scott Dean Peterson" <lordmountainlion@***.rr.com>
> > If I expected a tank I'd organize heavy firepower on
> > over watch, beyond that... sneak or run like hell.
>
>But see you are doing what I suggested. You have a set of ideas to
>compensate for the lack of a GD.

Ahh! I was thinking you were talking overlaps and replacement eg I've fired
the only GD missile I had so I'll switch to my IWS launcher, oh, that didn't
work, C12 it is then. covering the range is something every shadowrunner
I've ever played, met...etc does, not at the start of their career, but as
they progress.

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Message no. 93
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Mon Aug 12 13:45:05 2002
According to Scott Dean Peterson, on Mon, 12 Aug 2002 the word on the street was...

> Maybe I'm slow but wtf does iirc mean?

If I Recall Correctly.

> And what do you think is better
> updated tech than boron, Kevlar or composite polymers?

Monowire?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Huh?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 94
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Mon Aug 12 13:45:12 2002
According to Scott Dean Peterson, on Mon, 12 Aug 2002 the word on the street was...

> I just love this sort of thing. Do I need to go get my Armored Warfare
> Hard Back book and quote it ?

So does that mean you're agreeing with what I said, or are you implying that I got
it wrong without actually saying so?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Huh?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 95
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Mon Aug 12 13:45:26 2002
According to Scott Dean Peterson, on Mon, 12 Aug 2002 the word on the street was...

> No you don't the tube diameter doesn't change nor the length. the
> changes are to the missile itself.

You can only increase warhead diameter so far before you need to increase the
launch tube diameter, which usually means you'll have to design a new weapon
because the new tubes won't fit the old launchers... (OK, not with Dragon, which
you're probably going to mention here as a counter-argument, so I might as well
beat you to it :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Huh?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 96
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Mon Aug 12 15:05:01 2002
I said

> > And what do you think is better
> > updated tech than boron, Kevlar or composite polymers?

Gurth replied,

> Monowire?

Can you even spin (have spun) monowire? Seems like if you could it would
still be a metal tube, and unless its titanium, I don't think it would be
less weight than boron, but I'm not a materials expert.
Message no. 97
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Mon Aug 12 15:10:01 2002
> So does that mean you're agreeing with what I said, or are
> you implying that I got
> it wrong without actually saying so?

I was agreeing, it was just kindah funny and an off the cuff remark.
Message no. 98
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Mon Aug 12 15:15:01 2002
Gurth said,

> You can only increase warhead diameter so far before you need
> to increase the
> launch tube diameter, which usually means you'll have to
> design a new weapon
> because the new tubes won't fit the old launchers... (OK, not
> with Dragon, which
> you're probably going to mention here as a counter-argument,
> so I might as well
> beat you to it :)

Who said anything about diameter. The thing is that were NOT talking pounds
of weight saving, more like 1/4 pounds if anything. But one thing I think
most have overlooked is that were talking 58+ years of explosives research
and development. Think density and molecular chains. I mean look at WW2
and Comp B. Big blocks and only 4 times as powerful as sticks of TNT. Then
Look at Vietnam and C-4. I'd have to pull out my engineers filed book to
get exact numbers but basically about 3-6 times as powerful as Comp B. Now
we have syntex which is 8 times as powerful as C-4. See where I'm going
with this?

You shave pounds off the tube, pod, and sight and then increase the density
of the explosives of the warhead. Or another idea is instead of using some
form of composite or metal, or alloy for the missiles shell, make it a high
density explosive. I mean we got many years of development here to play
with in chemistry, metallurgy, optics etc. The ideas of implementation are
as limitless as the imagination of the developer.
Message no. 99
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Paul J. Adam)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Mon Aug 12 17:55:01 2002
In article <000201c24235$04292360$8c00f218@***.rr.com>, Scott Dean
Peterson <lordmountainlion@***.rr.com> writes
>Who said anything about diameter. The thing is that were NOT talking pounds
>of weight saving, more like 1/4 pounds if anything. But one thing I think
>most have overlooked is that were talking 58+ years of explosives research
>and development. Think density and molecular chains. I mean look at WW2
>and Comp B. Big blocks and only 4 times as powerful as sticks of TNT. Then
>Look at Vietnam and C-4. I'd have to pull out my engineers filed book to
>get exact numbers but basically about 3-6 times as powerful as Comp B.

To do with being able to shape it, not to do with the inherent power
(C-4 is, if I remember right, a similar RDX/TNT mix to Composition B,
but watered down very slightly with waxes and plasticisers to make it
malleable)

> Now
>we have syntex which is 8 times as powerful as C-4. See where I'm going
>with this?

Yep - RDX and HMX are still the most potent bulk explosives in sight and
they're fifty years old.

>You shave pounds off the tube, pod, and sight and then increase the density
>of the explosives of the warhead.

How? The density's driven by the chemistry of the explosive. Otherwise,
you'd build a super-aircraft by 'decreasing the density of the structure
of the airframe'. *Huge* amounts of money and time get spent to do just
that... often with indifferent results.

> Or another idea is instead of using some
>form of composite or metal, or alloy for the missiles shell, make it a high
>density explosive.

You mean 'Nipolit'? Used by the Germans in the latter stages of WW2, not
very successful.

>I mean we got many years of development here to play
>with in chemistry, metallurgy, optics etc. The ideas of implementation are
>as limitless as the imagination of the developer.

Actually, _workable_ ideas are pretty limited. Reality has a habit of
intruding.

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 100
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Bryan Pow)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Mon Aug 12 18:30:01 2002
>Actually, _workable_ ideas are pretty limited. Reality has a habit of
>intruding.

Reality also has a habit of giving you things you never thought were
possible, especially when some genius stretches the limits by breaking from
the paradigm.



--

"No grand idea was ever born in a conference, but alot of foolish ideas have
died there."

F. Scott Fitzgerald


_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 101
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Tue Aug 13 05:50:11 2002
According to Scott Dean Peterson, on Mon, 12 Aug 2002 the word on the street was...

> > Monowire?
>
> Can you even spin (have spun) monowire? Seems like if you could it would
> still be a metal tube, and unless its titanium, I don't think it would be
> less weight than boron, but I'm not a materials expert.

Well, if you believe all the stuff said and implied about it, it should be very a
strong material, for its thickness anyway. I don't see why it shouldn't be
possible to make a pipe out of it -- it's possible with other fibers...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Huh?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 102
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Tue Aug 13 05:50:19 2002
According to Scott Dean Peterson, on Mon, 12 Aug 2002 the word on the street was...

> Who said anything about diameter.

Both of you were talking about larger warheads. My idea is that a larger warhead
requires a bigger launch tube. (Note that I do realize a larger warhead is not
necessarily the same as a more powerful one, or vice-versa.)

> look at WW2 and Comp B. Big blocks and only 4 times as powerful as
> sticks of TNT. Then Look at Vietnam and C-4. I'd have to pull out my
> engineers filed book to get exact numbers but basically about 3-6 times
> as powerful as Comp B. Now we have syntex which is 8 times as powerful
> as C-4. See where I'm going with this?

To inaccurate numbers, I suspect :) My 1967 US Army demolitions manual says
Composition B and C4 are about the same strength. What gives?

> You shave pounds off the tube, pod, and sight and then increase the
> density of the explosives of the warhead.

If you use a more powerful explosive, it's probably going to weigh about the same
as the original one, so there'd be no need to lower the rest of the weapon's
weight.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Huh?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 103
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Tue Aug 13 06:25:03 2002
Scott Dean Peterson writes:

> I just love this sort of thing. Do I need to go get my Armored Warfare
> Hard Back book and quote it ?

It probably wouldn't hurt - it might clear up some confusion... <grin>

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a26 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W++ N+ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+@ 5@ X+>+++ R++ tv(-) b+ DI+++@ D-@ G+
e++>++++ h--- r+++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 104
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Tue Aug 13 06:40:01 2002
Scott Dean Peterson writes:

> Can you even spin (have spun) monowire?

Good question. The answer is "probably not", due to the difficulties in
handling the stuff.

> Seems like if you could it would still be a metal tube, and unless its
> titanium, I don't think it would be less weight than boron, but I'm not a
> materials expert.

It probably wouldn't be a single element. It would be more something like a
substitutued buckytube or doped nanotube or something. And it's structure
would be much more important than the elements in it. Arranging the atoms to
give maximum bonding strength at a atomic level would provide, in theory,
exceptional mechanical performance at a macroscopic level. This would allow
very tiny amounts of the material to be used to reach minimum
strength/stiffness/etc requirements in manufacturing.

So assuming that the stuff could be spun into a tube or melded into fibres
or something, then it would probably be possible to have an extremely thin
walled tube that was as strong as a much thicker walled tube of boron
composite. Even if the elements in the monowire were heavier than boron, or
weren't but had less efficient arrangement and thus higher density, the
thinner tube wall would probably dramatically reduce the weight of the tube.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a26 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W++ N+ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+@ 5@ X+>+++ R++ tv(-) b+ DI+++@ D-@ G+
e++>++++ h--- r+++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 105
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Tue Aug 13 06:45:01 2002
>From: "Scott Dean Peterson" <lordmountainlion@***.rr.com>
> > > And what do you think is better
> > > updated tech than boron, Kevlar or composite polymers?
>
>Gurth replied,
>
> > Monowire?
>
>Can you even spin (have spun) monowire? Seems like if you could it would
>still be a metal tube, and unless its titanium, I don't think it would be
>less weight than boron, but I'm not a materials expert.

The best analogue of monowire at present (and probably what becomes known as
monowire in the future) is an alatrope of carbon known as
Buckminsterfullerine, normally Buckminsterfullerine (which has the chemical
notation C60 (the sixty being subscript but...) which I will use from now
on) where was I, oh yes; normally Buckminsterfullerine (C60) contains 60
carbon atoms in a geodesic sphere (a sphere made up of two dimensional
shapes linked together), think of a football (soccerball for anyone west of
the Atlantic and porbably south of the Indian as well.) it's made up from
linked hexagons and pentagons right? imagine each corner on that football is
a carbon atom, there will be 60 of them. Buckminsterfullerine also occurs as
C70, imagine cuting your football in half along a set of seams then insert a
ring of extra sections, ten extra atoms worth, this happens in nature but I
believe the japanese have forced it, now imagine adding a ring of ten atoms
more, and again, and again, and again, the japanese last I had heard had
built up a C150 molecule, a monowhip would have to be (at two meters in
length) somewhere in the region of a C100,000,000 (that's a guess by the
way, I haven't calculated it if anyone decides to let me know how far out I
am.)
Mass wise, a Buckminsterfullerine fibre would has a mass measured on the
atomic scale and considerably lighter than Boron the problem is that about
the only things it won't cut are diamond and high density ceramics. That
would lead to a lot of duds as the nose fractures releases monowire which
slices through every other part of the rocket, it would also lead to some
very satisfactory results when luck runs the other way and the explosion
carries 3km or so of monowire through the armour and into the crew
compartment, where it might unfurl in a very "interesting" way.

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Message no. 106
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Tue Aug 13 13:20:01 2002
According to Damion Milliken, on Tue, 13 Aug 2002 the word on the street was...

> Good question. The answer is "probably not", due to the difficulties in
> handling the stuff.

It can be wound onto spools, right? So why wouldn't it be possible to make
tubes out of it?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Huh?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 107
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Tue Aug 13 15:25:01 2002
Ok lets see if I can handle this one. I had wondered when the great and
mighty P J Adams would enter the fray.

Paul said,

> To do with being able to shape it, not to do with the inherent
>>>>power(C-4 is, if I remember right, a similar RDX/TNT mix to
>>>>>Composition B, but watered down very slightly with waxes and
>>>plasticisers to make it malleable)

Yeah easier to work with and better for more special applications of
demolitions and shape charges. One of the main uses was in claymore mines.

> > Now
> >we have syntex which is 8 times as powerful as C-4. See
> where I'm going
> >with this?

> Yep - RDX and HMX are still the most potent bulk explosives
> in sight and
> they're fifty years old.

Man I have a episode of something from tlc where they did explosive
creations and concoctions. This is where I was getting most of the info
from for this line of thought. Will have to go dig the tape out and watch
it and come back.

> >You shave pounds off the tube, pod, and sight and then
> increase the density
> >of the explosives of the warhead.
>
> How? The density's driven by the chemistry of the explosive.
> Otherwise,
> you'd build a super-aircraft by 'decreasing the density of
> the structure
> of the airframe'. *Huge* amounts of money and time get spent
> to do just
> that... often with indifferent results.

As I said earlier in this thread, I'm not a materials expert nor a chemist
but I'm sure something could be done to improve it. But your statement
about aircraft, all I have to say is three names: Comanche, Spirt of Saint
Louis, Night Wraith.


> > Or another idea is instead of using some
> >form of composite or metal, or alloy for the missiles shell,
> make it a high
> >density explosive.

> You mean 'Nipolit'? Used by the Germans in the latter stages
> of WW2, not
> very successful.

Scott runs and digs out his books muttering wow something I'm not familiar
with. brb......Nope couldn't find anything on it. Educate me.

> >I mean we got many years of development here to play
> >with in chemistry, metallurgy, optics etc. The ideas of
> implementation are
> >as limitless as the imagination of the developer.

> Actually, _workable_ ideas are pretty limited. Reality has a habit of
> intruding.

Well Paul we have Magic and Cybernetics in this short time span, why not
better explosives?

Scott 'Edge' Peterson

Warrior Priest of Storm Haven
Ex epidemiologist El Paso County, El Paso Texas
Ex combat infantry man, 60% disabled.
Ex NREMT-P Nationally Registered Paramedic
Training Medical Anthropologist/MPH
Message no. 108
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Tue Aug 13 15:25:05 2002
I said,

> > Can you even spin (have spun) monowire? Seems like if you
> could it would
> > still be a metal tube, and unless its titanium, I don't
> think it would be
> > less weight than boron, but I'm not a materials expert.

Da Gurth Dude replied,

> Well, if you believe all the stuff said and implied about it,
> it should be very a
> strong material, for its thickness anyway. I don't see why it
> shouldn't be
> possible to make a pipe out of it -- it's possible with other
> fibers...

So what would be the weight savings. I cant even begin to figure it out.

Scott 'Edge' Peterson

Warrior Priest of Storm Haven
Ex epidemiologist El Paso County, El Paso Texas
Ex combat infantry man, 60% disabled.
Ex NREMT-P Nationally Registered Paramedic
Training Medical Anthropologist/MPH
Message no. 109
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Paul J. Adam)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Tue Aug 13 17:05:11 2002
In article <F784cnNRxGx6WrgTi9600001f90@*******.com>, Bryan Pow
<bryan_pow@*******.com> writes
>>Actually, _workable_ ideas are pretty limited. Reality has a habit of
>>intruding.
>
>Reality also has a habit of giving you things you never thought were
>possible, especially when some genius stretches the limits by breaking
>from the paradigm.

How many examples are there?

Breakthroughs are unpredictable. Iterative development tends to hit
limits, often predicted some time in advance.


How much has the infantry rifle bullet changed in the last century,
despite intensive efforts and massive research? It's changed size and
shape a bit, but it's still fundamentally the same in 2002 as it was in
1902.

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 110
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Tue Aug 13 21:40:01 2002
> How much has the infantry rifle bullet changed in the last century,
> despite intensive efforts and massive research? It's changed size and
> shape a bit, but it's still fundamentally the same in 2002 as
> it was in
> 1902.

So how do you explain things like semi wad cutters, hydro shock, Glaser,
paint, shot (for those currently around) and see my ammo supplement for more
in Tarot Firearms.

Scott 'Edge' Peterson

Warrior Priest of Storm Haven
Ex epidemiologist El Paso County, El Paso Texas
Ex combat infantry man, 60% disabled.
Ex NREMT-P Nationally Registered Paramedic
Training Medical Anthropologist/MPH
Message no. 111
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Bryan Pow)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Tue Aug 13 22:00:01 2002
>Breakthroughs are unpredictable. Iterative development tends to hit limits,
>often predicted some time in advance.
>
>
>How much has the infantry rifle bullet changed in the last century, despite
>intensive efforts and massive research? It's changed size and shape a bit,
>but it's still fundamentally the same in 2002 as it was in 1902.

The main limitations to design are usually paradigm limitations, ie getting
stuck with a way of thinking.
A good example was with a vehicle that needed a specific miles per galon
rating that Bill Clinton challenged the car industry to create.
As you know the internal combaustion engine has been around a long time, has
been perfected for a long time, but is generaly unchanged in princaple.
The car companies tried to make a car who's efficiency was equal to Clintons
goal. After years of trying they stated that it was impossible with modern
technology. Instead they made Electric/Combustion engine hybrid to get to
his goal.
A bunch of guys didn't believe the car comapanies and so decided to make a
combustion engine driven car that reached the goal. What they found was that
one of the main problems with fuel consumption was with acceleration and
deceleration, and that the only way to make a car that reached the goal was
to have one that stayed at constant revs. But how could this be done? They
made a motor that stayed at constant revs, but when ever it decelerated, the
energy was put into a hydrolic system that stored it as pressure that then
transferred it back into speed when accelerating so that the motor never had
to increase or decrease revs. The guys were not car engineers, they were
hydrolic experts. They were not stuck in the paradigm of the car
manufacturers.
Now as to explosives, recently discovered was a crystall lattice which was
found to be immensly explosive under certain conditions (it was found by
mistake when a scientist was experimenting and accidentally blew up his
lab). This was a suprise as the compound was not supposed to be explosive at
all, but when in a crystall lattice it exhibited different properties as it
bound oxygen atoms within the lattice that acted as an oxidising agent.

--
"No grand idea was ever born in a conference, but alot of foolish ideas have
died there."
F. Scott Fitzgerald


_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Message no. 112
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Wed Aug 14 04:20:01 2002
>From: "Scott Dean Peterson" <lordmountainlion@***.rr.com>
> > Actually, _workable_ ideas are pretty limited. Reality has a habit of
> > intruding.
>
>Well Paul we have Magic and Cybernetics in this short time span, why not
>better explosives?

Just a thought, please forgive my playing devil's advocate but...
what if the weight reduction is primarily due to improved explosives?
what if the explosive they're using is substantially less dense than
previous ones? The same explosive force therefore comes from a much lighter
warhead but not a smaller one, sometimes things like that happen in R&D,
you're aiming to do something (like reduce the amount of weight the
engineers need to carry to blow up that bridge), you make some progress
along the normal path (ie increasing the explosive power of the stuff) then
suddenly someone pops their head up from their cube with the idea of coming
at things from a different direction.

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 113
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Wed Aug 14 05:20:04 2002
According to Scott Dean Peterson, on Wed, 14 Aug 2002 the word on the street was...

> So how do you explain things like semi wad cutters, hydro shock, Glaser,
> paint, shot (for those currently around) and see my ammo supplement for
> more in Tarot Firearms.

Those aren't infantry bullets; they're all types of special-purpose ammunition
that you use when you know what you're going to be shooting at. Whereas ball (FMJ)
rounds need to be good all-round, and apparently nothing has been developed that's
better than what was available 100 years ago -- because if it had, don;t you think
it'd be in service...?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Huh?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 114
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Wed Aug 14 05:30:01 2002
Gurth said,

> Those aren't infantry bullets; they're all types of
> special-purpose ammunition
> that you use when you know what you're going to be shooting
> at. Whereas ball (FMJ)
> rounds need to be good all-round, and apparently nothing has
> been developed that's
> better than what was available 100 years ago -- because if it
> had, don;t you think
> it'd be in service...?

Ask spec opps opperators what they have chambered in thier weapons when on a
particular mission. Half the time it will be mil ball but if the situation
arrents you can bet they have the above ammo.

Scott 'Edge' Peterson

Warrior Priest of Storm Haven
Ex epidemiologist El Paso County, El Paso Texas
Ex combat infantry man, 60% disabled.
Ex NREMT-P Nationaly Registered Paramedic
Training Medical Anthropologist/MPH
Message no. 115
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Wed Aug 14 13:25:01 2002
According to Scott Dean Peterson, on Wed, 14 Aug 2002 the word on the street was...

> Ask spec opps opperators what they have chambered in thier weapons when
> on a particular mission. Half the time it will be mil ball but if the
> situation arrents you can bet they have the above ammo.

True, but that's not relevant to the fact that ball is probably still the best for
all-round, general purpose use...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Huh?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 116
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Wed Aug 14 15:15:01 2002
Eagle said,

> Just a thought, please forgive my playing devil's advocate but...
> what if the weight reduction is primarily due to improved explosives?
> what if the explosive they're using is substantially less dense than
> previous ones? The same explosive force therefore comes from
> a much lighter
> warhead but not a smaller one

This is exactly what I was proposing. You said it more eloquently than I.

Scott 'Edge' Peterson

Warrior Priest of Storm Haven
Ex epidemiologist El Paso County, El Paso Texas
Ex combat infantry man, 60% disabled.
Ex NREMT-P Nationally Registered Paramedic
Training Medical Anthropologist/MPH
Message no. 117
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Wed Aug 14 15:25:01 2002
Gurth said,

> True, but that's not relevant to the fact that ball is
> probably still the best for
> all-round, general purpose use...

Ill concede this point to you. But I'm so jaded about ball that I cant
think of it as standard. Hell I got corelokts rounds in .223 myself and in
.40 S&W

Scott 'Edge' Peterson

Warrior Priest of Storm Haven
Ex epidemiologist El Paso County, El Paso Texas
Ex combat infantry man, 60% disabled.
Ex NREMT-P Nationally Registered Paramedic
Training Medical Anthropologist/MPH
Message no. 118
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Wed Aug 14 20:25:02 2002
Gurth writes:

> It can be wound onto spools, right? So why wouldn't it be possible to make
> tubes out of it?

Weaving/forming is a bit more complicated than simply winding a thread onto
a spool, though. But you're right, a tube is a fairly simply structure, so
it ought to be possible given that the stuff can be handled using the right
materials.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a26 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W++ N+ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+@ 5@ X+>+++ R++ tv(-) b+ DI+++@ D-@ G+
e++>++++ h--- r+++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 119
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Paul J. Adam)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Fri Aug 16 04:25:06 2002
In article <000001c242ff$538c6a00$8c00f218@***.rr.com>, Scott Dean
Peterson <lordmountainlion@***.rr.com> writes
>> Yep - RDX and HMX are still the most potent bulk explosives
>> in sight and
>> they're fifty years old.
>
>Man I have a episode of something from tlc where they did explosive
>creations and concoctions. This is where I was getting most of the info
>from for this line of thought. Will have to go dig the tape out and watch
>it and come back.

Bear in mind that "powerful in a lab test" doesn't mean "stable enough
to be safe, can be pressed or cast into munitions, and is cheap enough
to be affordable".

>> How? The density's driven by the chemistry of the explosive.
>> Otherwise,
>> you'd build a super-aircraft by 'decreasing the density of
>> the structure
>> of the airframe'. *Huge* amounts of money and time get spent
>> to do just
>> that... often with indifferent results.
>
>As I said earlier in this thread, I'm not a materials expert nor a chemist
>but I'm sure something could be done to improve it. But your statement
>about aircraft, all I have to say is three names: Comanche, Spirt of Saint
>Louis, Night Wraith.

Spirit of St. Louis was an iteration of existing design, as is Comanche
(which, ironically, is a decade late, significantly overweight and
overbudget) Not heard of Night Wraith. None of these changed materials
science.

>> You mean 'Nipolit'? Used by the Germans in the latter stages
>> of WW2, not
>> very successful.
>
>Scott runs and digs out his books muttering wow something I'm not familiar
>with. brb......Nope couldn't find anything on it. Educate me.

Nipolit was developed by the Germans in WW2, using old gun propellant to
create high explosive. The main attraction was the reduced consumption
of nitric acid (1 ton of TNT required 1.1 tons of acid, while 1 ton of
Nipolit required .43 tons of acid)

Nipolit was an unexpectedly strong material, so it could be machined
like plastic. It was used to make blast grenades by simply cutting it to
shape and screwing in a detonator: it wasn't very successful since pure
blast weapons have little effective range, and storage and handling of
naked explosive is a touchy business likely to cause accidents.

>> Actually, _workable_ ideas are pretty limited. Reality has a habit of
>> intruding.
>
>Well Paul we have Magic and Cybernetics in this short time span, why not
>better explosives?

We've had some very smart chemists searching for fifty years. I'm
sceptical that there's a simple, easy answer they missed.

No doubt there might be some exotic chemicals available with a lot of
explosive force... but chemistry's a pretty well understood science, in
terms of the energy you can get out of breaking and remaking bonds.

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 120
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Paul J. Adam)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Fri Aug 16 04:25:15 2002
In article <000001c24333$d1a46440$8c00f218@***.rr.com>, Scott Dean
Peterson <lordmountainlion@***.rr.com> writes
>> How much has the infantry rifle bullet changed in the last century,
>> despite intensive efforts and massive research? It's changed size and
>> shape a bit, but it's still fundamentally the same in 2002 as
>> it was in
>> 1902.
>
>So how do you explain things like semi wad cutters, hydro shock, Glaser,
>paint, shot (for those currently around) and see my ammo supplement for more
>in Tarot Firearms.

How many of those are in use by combat soldiers?

Semi-wadcutters are _old_ technology, as are shot rounds. Glaser has a
lot of hype but not much actual use, and Hydra-Shok is just a
hollowpoint bullet (the centre post may or may not change the expansion
properties) - hollowpoints go back to the 1900s-vintage .455 Manstopper,
and the Dum-Dum bullet is from the 19th century.


--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 121
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Fri Aug 16 14:40:02 2002
Paul said,

> Not heard of Night Wraith. None of these changed
> materials
> science.

Um F-117a1 Stealth Fighter (bomber) and hell yeah it did!

> Nipolit was an unexpectedly strong material, so it could be machined
> like plastic. It was used to make blast grenades by simply
> cutting it to
> shape and screwing in a detonator: it wasn't very successful
> since pure
> blast weapons have little effective range,

Why didn't they wrap wire around it and turn it into a frag grenade?

>and storage and
> handling of
> naked explosive is a touchy business likely to cause accidents.

Piss poorly trained soldiers dose not make for a bad weapon system.

> We've had some very smart chemists searching for fifty years. I'm
> skeptical that there's a simple, easy answer they missed.
>
> No doubt there might be some exotic chemicals available with a lot of
> explosive force... but chemistry's a pretty well understood
> science, in
> terms of the energy you can get out of breaking and remaking bonds.

So were not going to see any new developments soon?

Scott
Message no. 122
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Fri Aug 16 14:40:08 2002
Paul asked,

> How many of those are in use by combat soldiers?

See my previous answer to gurths same question.

Scott
Message no. 123
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Paul J. Adam)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Fri Aug 16 17:20:06 2002
In article <000001c24554$d4f09060$8c00f218@***.rr.com>, Scott Dean
Peterson <lordmountainlion@***.rr.com> writes
>Paul said,
>
>> Not heard of Night Wraith. None of these changed
>> materials
>> science.
>
>Um F-117a1 Stealth Fighter (bomber) and hell yeah it did!

You mean the Nighthawk, and no - it didn't. Nothing revolutionary about
its structure (the shaping and coatings are a different matter, but the
F-117 is actually a pretty _inefficient_ airframe for its range/payload.
Penalty of first-generation stealth.)

>> Nipolit was an unexpectedly strong material, so it could be machined
>> like plastic. It was used to make blast grenades by simply
>> cutting it to
>> shape and screwing in a detonator: it wasn't very successful
>> since pure
>> blast weapons have little effective range,
>
>Why didn't they wrap wire around it and turn it into a frag grenade?

Too many manufacturing operations. This was Germany in late 1944...

>>and storage and
>> handling of
>> naked explosive is a touchy business likely to cause accidents.
>
>Piss poorly trained soldiers dose not make for a bad weapon system.

If it was so great, why hasn't it been copied? (The minor issue that it
was a pretty weak explosive compared to RDX is also a point)
>
>> We've had some very smart chemists searching for fifty years. I'm
>> skeptical that there's a simple, easy answer they missed.
>>
>> No doubt there might be some exotic chemicals available with a lot of
>> explosive force... but chemistry's a pretty well understood
>> science, in
>> terms of the energy you can get out of breaking and remaking bonds.
>
>So were not going to see any new developments soon?

In terms of fielded hardware? It seems not. (See the Journal of Defence
Science, April 2000, for a good article on the subject)

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 124
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Paul J. Adam)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Fri Aug 16 18:10:00 2002
In article <000101c24554$ff23c960$8c00f218@***.rr.com>, Scott Dean
Peterson <lordmountainlion@***.rr.com> writes
>Paul asked,
>
>> How many of those are in use by combat soldiers?
>
>See my previous answer to gurths same question.

Almost none, outside some highly specialised SF units? I rest my case.

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 125
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Fri Aug 16 19:25:00 2002
Paul said,

> You mean the Nighthawk, and no - it didn't. Nothing
> revolutionary about
> its structure (the shaping and coatings are a different
> matter, but the
> F-117 is actually a pretty _inefficient_ airframe for its
> range/payload.
> Penalty of first-generation stealth.)

Yeah hawk, sorry wasn't thinking, too much port.

> >Why didn't they wrap wire around it and turn it into a frag grenade?
>
> Too many manufacturing operations. This was Germany in late 1944...

It doesn't take a SOTA facility to wrap copper wire around a block of this
stuff would. I mean sounds wonderful for an 'offensive'-and not the way
shadowrun terms it-frag grenade.

Scott
Message no. 126
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Fri Aug 16 19:25:07 2002
Paul said

> Almost none, outside some highly specialized SF units? I rest my case.

That's exactly what I said. But this was getting off of what Gurth was
saying and he corrected me.

Scott
Message no. 127
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Paul J. Adam)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Sat Aug 17 03:25:01 2002
In article <000501c2457c$56156860$8c00f218@***.rr.com>, Scott Dean
Peterson <lordmountainlion@***.rr.com> writes
>Paul said,
>> >Why didn't they wrap wire around it and turn it into a frag grenade?
>>
>> Too many manufacturing operations. This was Germany in late 1944...
>
>It doesn't take a SOTA facility to wrap copper wire around a block of this
>stuff would.

Unless you're seriously short of copper, and indeed of most sorts of
wire...

You could make cast-iron casings, but then you're losing the point of
the material and you might as well stick with ordinary explosives (which
can be pressed or poured into a casing, rather than having to be
machined to fit)

>I mean sounds wonderful for an 'offensive'-and not the way
>shadowrun terms it-frag grenade.

Well, a non-frag grenade... which was part of the problem. Similarly, it
didn't work too well as a mine (tended to break up & decay when buried
for any length of time) or as a shell or bomb filling (it's solid, so
how do you get it inside?)

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 128
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Sat Aug 17 06:00:00 2002
According to Scott Dean Peterson, on Sat, 17 Aug 2002 the word on the street was...

> > Too many manufacturing operations. This was Germany in late 1944...
>
> It doesn't take a SOTA facility to wrap copper wire around a block of
> this stuff would. I mean sounds wonderful for an 'offensive'-and not the
> way shadowrun terms it-frag grenade.

I don't think Paul meant they didn't have the technology. More likely, they didn't
have the materials and/or manpower to spare for something like this in preference
to the production of, for example, existing models of hand grenade.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Huh?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 129
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Great Dragon
Date: Sat Aug 17 06:00:15 2002
According to Scott Dean Peterson, on Fri, 16 Aug 2002 the word on the street was...

> Piss poorly trained soldiers dose not make for a bad weapon system.

True, though you can't develop weapons systems expecting soldiers to be trained to
a high enough standard to use them if the facilities for that simply aren't
available, or if you're setting your expectations of the soldiers too high. We are
talking about late-WWII Germany here, after all (though that's not the only
example by far -- OICW, anyone?).

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Huh?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Great Dragon, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!