Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Hey Jon, give a hand please (Re: SR: MBT)
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 08:56:08 EDT
In a message dated 6/8/98 6:04:08 AM US Eastern Standard Time, gurth@******.NL
writes:

> > Anyway, the -only- problem I had with your suggested stats off the bat is
> that
> > I was looking for something that would work well -within- the given
> > R2/Cyberpirates mechanics. As such, the "Bod of 12" that you gave
the
> thing
> > was a bit much.
>
> It _has_ to have a Body of 12 to have an extra-large turret, which
> R2 quotes as being used on MBTs. Also it does not go outside the
> rules, since R2 clearly indicates MBTs have Body ratings of "10+".
>
Um, wait a second. They have a "Weapon Value" of 12, which only requires ...
damn, that is information I've got on the side....

JON Szeto, please help here....

-K
Message no. 2
From: Jon Szeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Hey Jon, give a hand please (Re: SR: MBT)
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 23:09:13 EDT
K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM> wrote,

> In a message dated 6/8/98 6:04:08 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
gurth@******.NL
> writes:

> > > Anyway, the -only- problem I had with your suggested stats off the bat
is
> > that
> > > I was looking for something that would work well -within- the given
> > > R2/Cyberpirates mechanics. As such, the "Bod of 12" that you
gave the
> > thing
> > > was a bit much.
> >
> > It _has_ to have a Body of 12 to have an extra-large turret, which
> > R2 quotes as being used on MBTs. Also it does not go outside the
> > rules, since R2 clearly indicates MBTs have Body ratings of "10+".
> >
> Um, wait a second. They have a "Weapon Value" of 12, which only requires
...
> damn, that is information I've got on the side....
>
> JON Szeto, please help here....

As per the rules on p. 134 of Rigger 2, an extra-large turret requires
six hardpoints. Since a vehicle can possess one hardpoint for every 2
points of Body it has, a vehicle intending to mount an extra-large turret
must have a minimum Body of 12. A tank with a Body of 12 would probably
(IMHO) be heavier than an M1A2 Abrams (at least 75 short tons, minimum)
and probably sports a 140 mm tank gun (the desired gun for the next
generation after Abrams) and coaxial HMG. (FYI, the M1A1 and M1A2 models
of the Abrams carry a 120 mm gun. IMHO, the SR-equivalent of a 120 mm
gun would probably just barely fit into a large turret, with maybe
enough room to squeeze in a coaxial MMG.)

-- Jon
Message no. 3
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Hey Jon, give a hand please (Re: SR: MBT)
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 13:27:18 +0100
K is the Symbol said on 8:56/8 Jun 98,...

> > It _has_ to have a Body of 12 to have an extra-large turret, which
> > R2 quotes as being used on MBTs. Also it does not go outside the
> > rules, since R2 clearly indicates MBTs have Body ratings of "10+".
> >
> Um, wait a second. They have a "Weapon Value" of 12, which only requires
...

XL turrets have a weapon value of 10, which also bugs me... A
Light Naval Gun is too light an armament for an MBT, if you ask
me -- it does 20D damage, not more than an autocannon, yet
there's a vast difference (IRL) between a 30 mm cannon and a
120 mm smoothbore gun. However, adding a Medium Naval Gun
to an MBT means there's no room for machineguns in the turret,
as it takes up 10 weapon spaces. What's really needed for an MBT
is a new gun.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Is it yours, or is it... goodbye!
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U 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. 4
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Hey Jon, give a hand please (Re: SR: MBT)
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 13:27:20 +0100
Jon Szeto said on 23:09/8 Jun 98,...

> As per the rules on p. 134 of Rigger 2, an extra-large turret requires
> six hardpoints. Since a vehicle can possess one hardpoint for every 2
> points of Body it has, a vehicle intending to mount an extra-large turret
> must have a minimum Body of 12. A tank with a Body of 12 would probably
> (IMHO) be heavier than an M1A2 Abrams (at least 75 short tons, minimum)
> and probably sports a 140 mm tank gun (the desired gun for the next
> generation after Abrams) and coaxial HMG. (FYI, the M1A1 and M1A2 models
> of the Abrams carry a 120 mm gun. IMHO, the SR-equivalent of a 120 mm
> gun would probably just barely fit into a large turret, with maybe
> enough room to squeeze in a coaxial MMG.)

One more problem, then: the rooftop MG. You need at least a
Body of 13 to add an XL turret and a pintle-mounted weapon at a
roof hatch. If Body 12 is one of today's heavy MBTs (like the
Abrams or Challenger), then what is Body 13, or 14 if you want a
HMG? To make an M1 you'd need a Body of 15, even!

Or can weapons mounted in a turret be pintle or ring mounts
without the need to buy those separately? What I mean is, an XL
turret has 10 weapon spaces; mounting the equivalent of a light
naval gun leaves 3 spaces, which allows 2 LMGs to be fitted.
Could one be a coax and the other on a pintle mount at the
commander's or loader's hatch?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Is it yours, or is it... goodbye!
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U 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. 5
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Hey Jon, give a hand please (Re: SR: MBT)
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 09:51:23 EDT
In a message dated 6/9/98 11:26:04 AM !!!First Boot!!!, gurth@******.NL
writes:

> XL turrets have a weapon value of 10, which also bugs me... A
> Light Naval Gun is too light an armament for an MBT, if you ask
> me -- it does 20D damage, not more than an autocannon, yet
> there's a vast difference (IRL) between a 30 mm cannon and a
> 120 mm smoothbore gun. However, adding a Medium Naval Gun
> to an MBT means there's no room for machineguns in the turret,
> as it takes up 10 weapon spaces. What's really needed for an MBT
> is a new gun.

Consider this guys ... Naval weapons cause something called "Overdamage",
which is damage which must be gotten rid of before being able to stage down
the damage normally ... and it takes two sucesses to reduce the overdamage by
a single point ...

A Light Naval Gun does 20D vehicular plus two points of overdamage ...
vehicles get to reduce this by one, so, only a point of overdamage remains ...
which means that after getting struck (if only 1 success hits the vehicle),
the rigger is going to need something on the line of 10 successes to get rid
of all of the damage done by the round ...

A Light Naval Gun is something definitely to put on a MBT ... and there is of,
course, putting an ANDREWS onto the MBT for close range fire ... of course
recharging means going back to a base to have either the battery changed or a
recharge done ...

-Mike
Message no. 6
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Hey Jon, give a hand please (Re: SR: MBT)
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 09:55:01 EDT
In a message dated 6/9/98 11:37:09 AM !!!First Boot!!!, gurth@******.NL
writes:

> One more problem, then: the rooftop MG. You need at least a
> Body of 13 to add an XL turret and a pintle-mounted weapon at a
> roof hatch. If Body 12 is one of today's heavy MBTs (like the
> Abrams or Challenger), then what is Body 13, or 14 if you want a
> HMG? To make an M1 you'd need a Body of 15, even!
>
> Or can weapons mounted in a turret be pintle or ring mounts
> without the need to buy those separately? What I mean is, an XL
> turret has 10 weapon spaces; mounting the equivalent of a light
> naval gun leaves 3 spaces, which allows 2 LMGs to be fitted.
> Could one be a coax and the other on a pintle mount at the
> commander's or loader's hatch?

Guys, a house rule we use ...

Hardpoints and Firmpoints on vehicles ...

Commercial (up to Luxury) ratio is as per the R2 ... 1 harpoint per 2 points
of Body, and a number of firm-points equal to the Body

Security ... ratio is 1.5 Body per hardpoint and no change in the number of
firmpoints ...

Military ... ratio is 1:1 for hardpoints to Body ratio ...

The reasoning for all of this is the higher costs that are associated with
military and security vehicles, and these vehicles also are intended to carry
more than the equivalent civilian version ...

-Mike
Message no. 7
From: Jon Szeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Hey Jon, give a hand please (Re: SR: MBT)
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 21:05:50 EDT
Gurth <gurth@******.NL> wrote,

> XL turrets have a weapon value of 10, which also bugs me... A
> Light Naval Gun is too light an armament for an MBT, if you ask
> me -- it does 20D damage, not more than an autocannon, yet
> there's a vast difference (IRL) between a 30 mm cannon and a
> 120 mm smoothbore gun. However, adding a Medium Naval Gun
> to an MBT means there's no room for machineguns in the turret,
> as it takes up 10 weapon spaces. What's really needed for an MBT
> is a new gun.

Yes, but there's a world of difference between a naval gun and a tank
cannon. A naval gun is an _indirect_ fire weapon, which lobs its fire
in an arc. Also, the damage it does is AREA damage. (True, the naval
damage code only affects that one ship, but remember, a ship is a big
object. So what would be point damage to a ship is area damage to a
target.)

A tank cannon, on the other hand, is a _direct_ fire weapon and does
POINT damage on a single target (like another vehicle). So a tank cannon
of the same caliber concentrates its damaging energy on one target,
instead of spreading it around.

There's also several ballistic differences which I'm not too proficient
on. IIRC, a naval gun and a tank gun with the same caliber and barrel
length still have different muzzle velocities and other ballistic
statistics. (Jeez, where's Paul when you need him?)

> One more problem, then: the rooftop MG. You need at least a
> Body of 13 to add an XL turret and a pintle-mounted weapon at a
> roof hatch. If Body 12 is one of today's heavy MBTs (like the
> Abrams or Challenger), then what is Body 13, or 14 if you want a
> HMG? To make an M1 you'd need a Body of 15, even!
>
> Or can weapons mounted in a turret be pintle or ring mounts
> without the need to buy those separately? What I mean is, an XL
> turret has 10 weapon spaces; mounting the equivalent of a light
> naval gun leaves 3 spaces, which allows 2 LMGs to be fitted.
> Could one be a coax and the other on a pintle mount at the
> commander's or loader's hatch?

IMHO, I wouldn't consider a roof-mounted turret as counting towards the
weapons or hardpoints taken up by a turret. The weapon (and, in some
cases, the gunner) doesn't benefit from the protection of the turret,
and so I wouldn't consider it as part of the turret. True, it's
_physically_ mounted on the turret, but for game purposes I would count
it against any remaining hardpoints possessed by the vehicle.

So, to go back to the SR-equivalent of an Abrams, it would have the large
turret with 120mm cannon and coaxial MMG, and an HMG on a ring mount.
Five hardpoints, Body 10.

-- Jon
Message no. 8
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Hey Jon, give a hand please (Re: SR: MBT)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 12:06:03 +0100
Jon Szeto said on 21:05/9 Jun 98,...

> Yes, but there's a world of difference between a naval gun and a tank
> cannon. A naval gun is an _indirect_ fire weapon, which lobs its fire
> in an arc.

I'm not very up-to-date on the way navies do things, so I'll take
your word for it :)

> There's also several ballistic differences which I'm not too proficient
> on. IIRC, a naval gun and a tank gun with the same caliber and barrel
> length still have different muzzle velocities and other ballistic
> statistics.

Maybe that has to do with differences in the charge weight and
composition, and projectile shape? (Weren't you an artillery
officer? :)

> (Jeez, where's Paul when you need him?)

I don't know, I haven't seen him on the list in quite some time.
Maybe he decided it's not worth his time anymore...

> IMHO, I wouldn't consider a roof-mounted turret as counting towards the
> weapons or hardpoints taken up by a turret. The weapon (and, in some
> cases, the gunner) doesn't benefit from the protection of the turret,
> and so I wouldn't consider it as part of the turret. True, it's
> _physically_ mounted on the turret, but for game purposes I would count
> it against any remaining hardpoints possessed by the vehicle.

Okay, that's what I thought too but since R2 doesn't mention
this, I couldn't be sure. BTW, a cupola with a remote-controlled
MG like that on the M1 and M1A1 would be a mini-turret, right?

> So, to go back to the SR-equivalent of an Abrams, it would have the large
> turret with 120mm cannon and coaxial MMG, and an HMG on a ring mount.
> Five hardpoints, Body 10.

I may have to adjust my MBT design :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Bombarded by superlatives.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U 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: Sommers <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Hey Jon, give a hand please (Re: SR: MBT)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 13:26:40 -0400
At 09:05 PM 6/9/98 EDT, you wrote:
>Yes, but there's a world of difference between a naval gun and a tank
>cannon. A naval gun is an _indirect_ fire weapon, which lobs its fire
>in an arc. Also, the damage it does is AREA damage. (True, the naval
>damage code only affects that one ship, but remember, a ship is a big
>object. So what would be point damage to a ship is area damage to a
>target.)
>

IIRC a tank gun (120 mm etc) has a range of about 2-5 km, right? I think
that's about what engagement range is for tanks (at least the A1). SMALL (5
inch) naval guns are firing 5-6 miles. If you start getting into the big
ones, like the 16 in on the Missouri, you're firing the equivelent of a VW
Beetle filled with explosives a range of around 20-30 miles!

I would call that a BIG world of difference!

Sommers
Message no. 10
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Hey Jon, give a hand please (Re: SR: MBT)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 13:37:22 -0400
Sommers wrote:
>IIRC a tank gun (120 mm etc) has a range of about 2-5 km, right? I think
>that's about what engagement range is for tanks (at least the A1). SMALL (5
>inch) naval guns are firing 5-6 miles. If you start getting into the big

To keep units straight, 8-10 km.

>ones, like the 16 in on the Missouri, you're firing the equivelent of a VW
>Beetle filled with explosives a range of around 20-30 miles!

A 16 inch VW Beetle? That's either a big insect or a tiny car! :-)
Again, 32-48 km...

>I would call that a BIG world of difference!

So would I!

James Ojaste
Message no. 11
From: Rune Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Hey Jon, give a hand please (Re: SR: MBT)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 19:49:34 +0200
>IIRC a tank gun (120 mm etc) has a range of about 2-5 km, right? I think
>that's about what engagement range is for tanks (at least the A1). SMALL (5
>inch) naval guns are firing 5-6 miles. If you start getting into the big
>ones, like the 16 in on the Missouri, you're firing the equivelent of a VW
>Beetle filled with explosives a range of around 20-30 miles!
>
>I would call that a BIG world of difference!

Well...

The Yamamoto had 18" guns firing .. hm.. 1600 kilo shells at 20-30
kilometers with accuracy, IIRC, and could fire it 40 kilometers if it wanted
to - without accuracy. This was definitely indirect fire, and definitely
not tank gun class weaponry.

But today, naval guns are very much direct fire, short range weapons. If they
need to fire at long range they use missiles. Not many ships even bother with
guns heavier than MG's or small autocannons. (Coast guard ships use them,
of course - it's easier, or at least cheaper, shooting warning shots with
cannons than cruise missiles, for some reason.

Wish I had my Harpoon platform library here. I know most ships of cruiser
size or heavier carries a gun of sorts, but usually just one or two, and not
an all that heavy ones. Only remnants from WWII (Like the Missouri) still
carry BFG's.

Somewhere there's mentioned ship - based railguns. (coil, gauss, whatever.
The exact type is of little significance.). That might have caused a
renaissance of 'big guns', as they could fire faster, longer, better, more
varied ammunition. ('soft launched' advanced rounds or 'hard fired' direct
kill stuff, or anything in between - possibly good air defence, too).

Fade

--

ADVICE, n. The smallest current coin.
-Ambrose Bierce
Message no. 12
From: Sommers <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Hey Jon, give a hand please (Re: SR: MBT)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 14:19:05 -0400
At 01:37 PM 6/10/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Sommers wrote:
>>IIRC a tank gun (120 mm etc) has a range of about 2-5 km, right? I think
>>that's about what engagement range is for tanks (at least the A1). SMALL (5
>>inch) naval guns are firing 5-6 miles. If you start getting into the big
>
>To keep units straight, 8-10 km.

Okay, to keep this accurate I went to the DOD web page. According to the navy:

Mark 45 ~ 5-inch, 54-caliber lightweight gun
General Characteristics

Primary Function: Fully-automatic, lightweight gun mount.
Range: 13 nautical miles (14.9 statue miles)
Type of Fire: 16-20 rounds per minute automatic
Magazine Capacity: 475-500 rounds per magazine.
Caliber: 5 inch (12.7 cm)
Date Deployed: 1971 (Mark 45)

Mark 75 ~ 76mm/62 caliber 3" gun
General Characteristics

Range: 10 nautical miles (11.5 statue miles, 18.4 km)
Guidance System: Remotely controlled
Type of Fire: 80 rounds per minute automatic
Caliber: 76 mm (3 inch)

>>ones, like the 16 in on the Missouri, you're firing the equivelent of a VW
>>Beetle filled with explosives a range of around 20-30 miles!
>
>A 16 inch VW Beetle? That's either a big insect or a tiny car! :-)
>Again, 32-48 km...

The stuff about the 16 inchers on the Missouri are what I'm trying to
remember from an article in Pop Science a few years ago. The 16 is the bore
diameter. But its a BIG round. The weight of it is about 2000 pounds, or
about the weight of a VW Bug. That was what the quote referred to, and what
I always remember about the article. And if the 5 inch guns go 15 miles
(~25 km) then the 16 inch probably goes a lot longer than I remember!

Sommers
Message no. 13
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Hey Jon, give a hand please (Re: SR: MBT)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 14:32:43 -0400
Sommers wrote:
>>>IIRC a tank gun (120 mm etc) has a range of about 2-5 km, right? I think
>>>that's about what engagement range is for tanks (at least the A1). SMALL (5
>>>inch) naval guns are firing 5-6 miles. If you start getting into the big
>>
>>To keep units straight, 8-10 km.
>
>Okay, to keep this accurate I went to the DOD web page. According to the
>navy:

[liberally snipped]
>Mark 45 ~ 5-inch, 54-caliber lightweight gun
>Range: 13 nautical miles (14.9 statue miles)
>
>Mark 75 ~ 76mm/62 caliber 3" gun
>Range: 10 nautical miles (11.5 statue miles, 18.4 km)
[snip]
>The stuff about the 16 inchers on the Missouri are what I'm trying to
>remember from an article in Pop Science a few years ago. The 16 is the bore
>diameter. But its a BIG round. The weight of it is about 2000 pounds, or
>about the weight of a VW Bug. That was what the quote referred to, and what
>I always remember about the article. And if the 5 inch guns go 15 miles
>(~25 km) then the 16 inch probably goes a lot longer than I remember!

Not necessarily. It's much harder to throw a large weight a further
distance than a lighter one. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find
that the bigger guns have a much shorter range. To hedge my bets, I
wouldn't be surprised to find that they have a longer range, either...
I suspect that it's shorter though.

James Ojaste
Message no. 14
From: Rune Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Hey Jon, give a hand please (Re: SR: MBT)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 20:42:36 +0200
>>But its a BIG round. The weight of it is about 2000 pounds, or
>>about the weight of a VW Bug. That was what the quote referred to, and what
>>I always remember about the article. And if the 5 inch guns go 15 miles
>>(~25 km) then the 16 inch probably goes a lot longer than I remember!
>
>Not necessarily. It's much harder to throw a large weight a further
>distance than a lighter one. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find
>that the bigger guns have a much shorter range. To hedge my bets, I
>wouldn't be surprised to find that they have a longer range, either...
>I suspect that it's shorter though.

Important point - the range both I and others have quoted on 16-18 in guns
are WWII ranges, and also limited on effective sighting range. Over the
horizon targeting was not good at the time, for instance, effectively limiting
the range quite a bit. The missouri, when used for shore bombardment in Desert
Storm, with spotters, probably had AWESOME range. Using lighter rounds would
also help.

So if, somehow, ships had MODERN battleship guns and targeting, and this made
over - the - horizon targeting possible, those guns would definitely have
their use and have a lot better range than WWII guns. But currently, missiles
are so much more effective in long - range combat...

Naval missiles are either short or long - range, short range being
approximately 60 kilometers, long range being well into the 300-600 kilometers
range... far more than cannons in either case.

Hope that added something to the discussion.

Fade


--

ADVICE, n. The smallest current coin.
-Ambrose Bierce
Message no. 15
From: Sommers <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Hey Jon, give a hand please (Re: SR: MBT)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 14:44:56 -0400
At 07:49 PM 6/10/98 +0200, you wrote:
>But today, naval guns are very much direct fire, short range weapons. If they
>need to fire at long range they use missiles. Not many ships even bother with
>guns heavier than MG's or small autocannons. (Coast guard ships use them,
>of course - it's easier, or at least cheaper, shooting warning shots with
>cannons than cruise missiles, for some reason.

See my previous message about 3' and 5' guns. 15 miles sounds like indirect
fire to me! And I would think that guns would ALWAYS be on ships. First of
course is the warning shot. Also there's the intimidation factor. Anbody
can lob a missile at a target 30-40 clicks away. We've got a GUN that can
get shells that far!;)

Plus they're expensive, but cheaper than guided missiles for your general
"flatten the town" warfare as opposed to the more strategic pinpoint
bombing of laser guided bombs and guided missiles.

But a big reason was highlighted in Tomorrow Never Dies (no carps please!),
the last Bond flick. Bad guy has a stealth ship (based on a real one in te
US Navy, btw). Even after they get a faint radar signal, still not enough
to lock on with a weapon control radar. So as the first office says, they
"have to do it the old fashioned way." There aren't going to be a lot of
ships like that, but more of the Navy's ships now are being designed more
with stealth in mind. Nice to know that all you need is a general distance
and bearing and you let loose. At 20 rounds a minute, you can still walk
you fire fairly quickly.

And then there's naval tradition...

>Somewhere there's mentioned ship - based railguns. (coil, gauss, whatever.
>The exact type is of little significance.). That might have caused a
>renaissance of 'big guns', as they could fire faster, longer, better, more
>varied ammunition. ('soft launched' advanced rounds or 'hard fired' direct
>kill stuff, or anything in between - possibly good air defence, too).

Railguns are mentioned as being highspeed missile killers. They go REALLY
farand fast, but are small enough that they don't do wide area damage like
you would want against another ship. But great against incomming missiles.
They also do particle beams, which are used to kill the electronics of the
missiles. IIRC, they didn't have a lot of range, but as an anti-missile,
they're the last line of defense. Kind of like the Phalanx systems on ships
today.

Sommers
Message no. 16
From: The Bookworm <Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Hey Jon, give a hand please (Re: SR: MBT)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 13:58:11 -0500
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, Ojaste,James [NCR] wrote:

> Sommers wrote:
> >ones, like the 16 in on the Missouri, you're firing the equivelent of a VW
> >Beetle filled with explosives a range of around 20-30 miles!
> A 16 inch VW Beetle? That's either a big insect or a tiny car! :-)
> Again, 32-48 km...

I think the "firing a VW beetle" quote everyone uses comes from the fact
the shell weighs about the same as an empty VW Beetle. Shure its smaller
but its solid none of that passenger room stuff:).

Oh and i heard rummors of a subcaliber laser guided round they came up
with. A smaller payload but it was acurate out to 40-50 miles(64-80
km if i multiplied right:)) Then again what what warships today are
armored against anything bigger than 30-40 mm rounds anyway?

To bad they decomissioned the Iowa's because they where to expensive and
manpower intesive. There are no more Big Gun ships left in the world now.
:(

Thomas Price
aka The Bookworm
thomas.m.price@*******.edu
tmprice@***********.com
Message no. 17
From: Sommers <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Hey Jon, give a hand please (Re: SR: MBT)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 14:58:41 -0400
At 02:32 PM 6/10/98 -0400, you wrote:

[Another big snip]
>>The stuff about the 16 inchers on the Missouri are what I'm trying to
>>remember from an article in Pop Science a few years ago. The 16 is the bore
>>diameter. But its a BIG round. The weight of it is about 2000 pounds, or
>>about the weight of a VW Bug. That was what the quote referred to, and what
>>I always remember about the article. And if the 5 inch guns go 15 miles
>>(~25 km) then the 16 inch probably goes a lot longer than I remember!
>
>Not necessarily. It's much harder to throw a large weight a further
>distance than a lighter one. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find
>that the bigger guns have a much shorter range. To hedge my bets, I
>wouldn't be surprised to find that they have a longer range, either...
>I suspect that it's shorter though.
>
>James Ojaste

Yeah, its much harder to throw that weight. But you should see what they
used. The shell was one piece, with a 16' diameter. From the vague haze of
my mind at work it was about 5-6' long. They loaded that, and then the
gunpowder charge after it. That consisted of three bags of powder, each
about 2' wide and 4' long. That's a lot of powder. And this was for each
shell! Three guns on each turret, 2 on the front, one on the back, that's 9
VW bugs worth of explosive (I just love that method of measuring!) coming
at an area. The rate of fire was something like 1 salvo every minute or 2.
Back when we were involved with Lebabon, they used that to flatten some big
parts of Beirut. Same in the Gulf War.

IMHO, you get a lot more bang for your buck with carriers in terms of
strategic value and force projection. But a battleship does have those
intangible qualities of being almost as big as a carrier and looking even
more imposing. If your the opposition, which looks scarrier? A ship with a
flat top and a little island, or one with 9 guns that you could just about
crawl into?

Sommers
Message no. 18
From: Sommers <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Hey Jon, give a hand please (Re: SR: MBT)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 15:09:39 -0400
At 01:58 PM 6/10/98 -0500, you wrote:

[snip]
>Oh and i heard rummors of a subcaliber laser guided round they came up
>with. A smaller payload but it was acurate out to 40-50 miles(64-80
>km if i multiplied right:)) Then again what what warships today are
>armored against anything bigger than 30-40 mm rounds anyway?

That was one of the best parts about the battleships. I think during the
Gulf War Iraq got off a few Exocet missiles against the Missouri. That was
the kind that sunk the Stark back in 88, I believe, in the Gulf. Anyway,
most of them got blown away but one made it through and hit broadside. It
didn't penetrate. Those anti-ship missiles were designed to go through
modern ship armor and hulls, not the 18' thick (!) steel plating of the
Missouri. Thing did hardly and damage at all.

>
>To bad they decomissioned the Iowa's because they where to expensive and
>manpower intesive. There are no more Big Gun ships left in the world now.
>:(

Actually the MIssouri will be around for another few months. Its making it
final tour, and then will be decomissioned next to Arizona memorial.

Sommers
Message no. 19
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Hey Jon, give a hand please (Re: SR: MBT)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 15:20:47 -0400
Sommers wrote:
>>Oh and i heard rummors of a subcaliber laser guided round they came up
>>with. A smaller payload but it was acurate out to 40-50 miles(64-80
>>km if i multiplied right:)) Then again what what warships today are
>>armored against anything bigger than 30-40 mm rounds anyway?
>
>That was one of the best parts about the battleships. I think during the
>Gulf War Iraq got off a few Exocet missiles against the Missouri. That was
>the kind that sunk the Stark back in 88, I believe, in the Gulf. Anyway,
>most of them got blown away but one made it through and hit broadside. It
>didn't penetrate. Those anti-ship missiles were designed to go through
>modern ship armor and hulls, not the 18' thick (!) steel plating of the
>Missouri. Thing did hardly and damage at all.

I hope you meant 18" (18 inches)... 18 feet of steel plating would
be enough to ignore anything but large bombs!

James Ojaste
Message no. 20
From: Sommers <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Hey Jon, give a hand please (Re: SR: MBT)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 15:24:07 -0400
At 03:20 PM 6/10/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Sommers wrote:
[Snip]
>I hope you meant 18" (18 inches)... 18 feet of steel plating would
>be enough to ignore anything but large bombs!
>
>James Ojaste
>

Oops! Yup, I meant 18 inches. Damn. I always get the ' and " mixed up. So I
guess for most of my posts today, read that I meant inches and not feet;)

Sommers
"Who WAS feeling pretty good today about his technology knowledge today..."
Message no. 21
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Hey Jon, give a hand please (Re: SR: MBT)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 22:09:12 +0100
Sommers said on 14:19/10 Jun 98,...

> And if the 5 inch guns go 15 miles
> (~25 km) then the 16 inch probably goes a lot longer than I remember!

Or not. You're comparing 1940s to 1970s weapons now, and big
improvements in ballistics can be made in 30 years or so.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Stop asking questions that don't matter anyway...
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U 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. 22
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Hey Jon, give a hand please (Re: SR: MBT)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 22:09:13 +0100
Sommers said on 13:26/10 Jun 98,...

> IIRC a tank gun (120 mm etc) has a range of about 2-5 km, right? I think
> that's about what engagement range is for tanks (at least the A1). SMALL (5
> inch) naval guns are firing 5-6 miles.

Which mostly has to do with the different roles, and not in the
least the mountings, of those guns, IMO. Tank guns elevate to
only about 20-30 degrees because they're intended to be fired at
targets the gunner can SEE. Which isn't that far on a land
battlefield, when compared to an open see where there's nothing
to block vision for kilometers around. OTOH naval guns can
usually elevate quite far, thereby extending the effective range
quite a bit.

> If you start getting into the big
> ones, like the 16 in on the Missouri, you're firing the equivelent of a VW
> Beetle filled with explosives a range of around 20-30 miles!

The _mass_ of a VW Beetle perhaps, but certainly not the _size_
(as you're implying, and many others as well). Or is a new-style
Beetle 40 cm across? :)

> I would call that a BIG world of difference!

I would call it comparing apples and oranges. Comparing a 127
mm naval gun to a 120 mm tank gun is fine by me because
they're more or less similar in shell and overall gun size, but the
40 cm gun has nothing to do with the whole thing... Unless,
perhaps, maybe, possibly, you propose fitting one to a tracked
chassis and using it as divisional artillery...?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Stop asking questions that don't matter anyway...
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U 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. 23
From: John Dukes <dukes@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: Hey Jon, give a hand please (Re: SR: MBT)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 16:04:19 -0500
<snip stuff about different heavy guns>

In WW2, the Yamato class of super-battleships were the largest, most
heavily armed and armoed battleships ever built in human history (larger
even than the American Iowa class, although the Iowas where faster). Its
main guns where nine 18.1 inch guns. The side hull armor was 16 inches
thick. The deck armor was 9 inches thick. Most battleships of the era had
secondary and even tertiary gun emplacements in addition to their AA
batteries. The Yamato has 6.1 inch secondary guns and 5 inch tertiary
turrets as well as more 25mm anti aircraft guns as you could shake a stick
at. Primary battleship guns in the era where limited primarily by line of
sight. They would spot a ship on the horizon and open fire with main guns.
If the situation warranted they would close distance and pound away with
their secondary batteries. The shells of primary battleship guns weigh
around 2000 lbs (turrets had cranes inside them to load the shell into the
breech) and are quite capable of vaporizing a destroyer with one shell. The
shells are also prohibitavely expensive, but then, such things tend to get
overlooked at wartime. Aircraft and missile technology today make
conventional battleship guns inefficient for anything except shore
bombardment. IIRC, only the US and maybe the UK still have conventional
battleships in service. FWIW, all the Yamato class super-battleships where
destroyed by aircraft and submarines.

Tank weapons are on an entirely different scale than any naval gun. Its
like comparing a 30 calibur pistol round with a 30 calibur rifle round. US
tanks usually rely on technology to aim the shells it fires. Laser
designation and suchforth. Soviet tanks usually relied on a muzzle velocity
so high that it was pretty much a matter of point and shoot. By the time
the shell started to arc it was outside visual range anyway. APDS
incidentally is a modern day tank shell that works on the same principle as
Shadowrun APDS. It is designed to penetrate heavy tank armor and is
worthless against infantry. High explosive ammo is just that. Basically a
big shell. Works well on soft targets, and any time you need an actual
explosion. I'm sure there are other types of tank ammo, but its almost
always a balance between penetration and area effect.

Hope I didnt bore you all too badly! ;)

-Teeg.
Social Studies Education Major, Wargamer, Military History Buff
Message no. 24
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Hey Jon, give a hand please (Re: SR: MBT)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 20:00:51 -0500
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 13:26:40 -0400 Sommers <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
writes:
>At 09:05 PM 6/9/98 EDT, you wrote:
<SNIP Discussion of Tank versus Naval Weapons>
>If you start getting into the big
>ones, like the 16 in on the Missouri, you're firing the equivelent of a
VW
>Beetle filled with explosives a range of around 20-30 miles!
>
>I would call that a BIG world of difference!
>
>Sommers

"Sir! Incoming APDS Volkswagons!"

"Oh the humanity..."

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)
"Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone"

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 25
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Hey Jon, give a hand please (Re: SR: MBT)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 22:30:27 EDT
In a message dated 6/10/98 7:21:37 PM !!!First Boot!!!, James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA
writes:

> >That was one of the best parts about the battleships. I think during the
> >Gulf War Iraq got off a few Exocet missiles against the Missouri. That was
> >the kind that sunk the Stark back in 88, I believe, in the Gulf. Anyway,
> >most of them got blown away but one made it through and hit broadside. It
> >didn't penetrate. Those anti-ship missiles were designed to go through
> >modern ship armor and hulls, not the 18' thick (!) steel plating of the
> >Missouri. Thing did hardly and damage at all.
>
> I hope you meant 18" (18 inches)... 18 feet of steel plating would
> be enough to ignore anything but large bombs!

IIRC, the Missouri and the other battleships in the US Navy have 18 inches of
steel at the bow and aft sections of the ship, and towards amidship they can
have upwards of 36 inches of steel and concrete.

-Mike
Message no. 26
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Hey Jon, give a hand please (Re: SR: MBT)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 22:41:45 EDT
In a message dated 6/10/98 8:10:40 PM !!!First Boot!!!, gurth@******.NL
writes:

> > And if the 5 inch guns go 15 miles
> > (~25 km) then the 16 inch probably goes a lot longer than I remember!
>
> Or not. You're comparing 1940s to 1970s weapons now, and big
> improvements in ballistics can be made in 30 years or so.

Case in point ... in Desert Storm, the Missouri used a small UAV drone to
paint targets on the ground so that their gunnery positions could make use of
GPS and other coordinates of that nature to enhance their targeting (I believe
this is something called FDDM in R2).

IN WW2, most of the lobbing of shells did not have this accuracy at such
distances, as the Missouri in Desert Storm stayed conviently out of range of
the 25 km (IIRC) average range of the Iraqi artillery.

-Mike
Message no. 27
From: Russ Myrick <rm33735@*****.NET>
Subject: Re: Hey Jon, give a hand please (Re: SR: MBT)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 23:39:39 -0500
Ojaste,James [NCR] wrote:

> A 16 inch VW Beetle? That's either a big insect or a tiny car! :-)
> Again, 32-48 km...
>

Could he be referring to the mass of the metal involved in the shell casing
compared to that of the bug... err...car?

> >I would call that a BIG world of difference!
>
> So would I!
>

The results are indeed impressive..... remembering bleeding ears received
onboard sub while providing asw screen to mighty mo during target practice....
what was that you said....

ceedawg
Message no. 28
From: Russ Myrick <rm33735@*****.NET>
Subject: Re: Hey Jon, give a hand please (Re: SR: MBT)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 23:47:03 -0500
Sommers wrote:

> The stuff about the 16 inchers on the Missouri are what I'm trying to
> remember from an article in Pop Science a few years ago. The 16 is the bore
> diameter. But its a BIG round. The weight of it is about 2000 pounds, or
> about the weight of a VW Bug. That was what the quote referred to, and what
> I always remember about the article. And if the 5 inch guns go 15 miles
> (~25 km) then the 16 inch probably goes a lot longer than I remember!
>

Check Jane's....it's in there, so is the Jersey with it's VN record ....the target
practice i was on perimeter for was with RAHE (Rocket Assisted High Explosive) the
average range of fire was 160km and 300mm HY80 penetration capability.

ceedawg
Message no. 29
From: Danyel N Woods <9604801@********.AC.NZ>
Subject: Re: Hey Jon, give a hand please (Re: SR: MBT)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 17:24:36 +1200
Quoth Russ Myrick (1647 11-06-98 NZT):

<<SLICE>>
>> remember from an article in Pop Science a few years ago. The 16 is
the bore
>> diameter. But its a BIG round. The weight of it is about 2000 pounds,
or
>> about the weight of a VW Bug. That was what the quote referred to,
and what
>> I always remember about the article. And if the 5 inch guns go 15
miles
>> (~25 km) then the 16 inch probably goes a lot longer than I remember!
>>
>
>Check Jane's....it's in there, so is the Jersey with it's VN record
....the target
>practice i was on perimeter for was with RAHE (Rocket Assisted High
Explosive) the
>average range of fire was 160km and 300mm HY80 penetration capability.

They could penetrate a foot of high-strength steel with a one-tonne
shell (probably half being explosive) behind the penetration, at a range
of an *even hundred miles*? <whimper> What sort of accuracy were they
getting?

I knew battlers were good for shore-bombardment, but *that* sort of
firepower, at nine shells per salvo, times two salvoes per minute...
<wince for recipients of this 'incoming mail'.> I've always respected
(and been awed by) naval gunfire support, but this stuff - 'Oh, I'm
sorry, mister Iraqi division commander, did I just vapourise your
command? Aw, gee, ain't that a shame?' I wish they'd kept the
gun-cruisers around, if only for that 'hi there' effect, as cited by
Sommers. Okay, cruise missiles are longer-ranged, more accurate, and
maybe cheaper and more flexible to deploy. But a battleship has better
weight-of-fire for the 'wide area' targets, and it's got *STYLE*.

Incidentally, ceedawg, how far was your boat from 'Mighty Mo' (good
name!) when she fired? Having seen pictures of a broadside's
muzzle-blast, I'd be surprised if the non-sonar types didn't hear it
through the hull...

Danyel Woods
9604801@********.ac.nz
Who always loved the big-gun ships
Message no. 30
From: The Bookworm <Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Hey Jon, give a hand please (Re: SR: MBT)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 14:15:57 -0500
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, Russ Myrick wrote:

>
> Check Jane's....it's in there, so is the Jersey with it's VN record ....

Dont have a copy, wish i could afford all the Jane's books though:)

> the target
> practice i was on perimeter for was with RAHE (Rocket Assisted High Explosive) the
> average range of fire was 160km and 300mm HY80 penetration capability.

*Massive Eye Bulging Special Effects* They developed Rocket Assisted
rounds for the 16" guns!?!?!? Dang thats scarry. I would think the
explosive/amorpeircing caseing part of the shell would have to be a good
bit smaller. But the range and terminal velocity they would have on that
thing could let it cut through the target like butter! Please tell me it
wasnt a smart munition also... *shudders at the thought of a super long
range guided AP round*

Thomas Price
aka The Bookworm
thomas.m.price@*******.edu
tmprice@***********.com

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Hey Jon, give a hand please (Re: SR: MBT), 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!