Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 03:10:53 +0000
In article <3331B121.425C@****.datanet.hu>, Amper
<amper@****.datanet.hu> writes
>Hail!
>
>I'm Andrew Timar-Geng from Hungary. I play whit a rigger, his name is
>Amper.
>And 1 have a question: how high can a LAV fly?
>
>PS: Sorry, if my english letters isn't perfect. Please correct me, if I
>made a bug.

You're English is fine, better than some English speakers here on the
list in fact. (Isn't that right Bull?) <g>

Oh, and welcome to the list.


Regrading your question about LAVs., it very much depends on the tech
level of your game. And the type of LAV you mean. I use both, civilian
and military, the variation being that the civilian models are basically
flying cars.


By the nature of their engines, they fly at a regulated height that
won't interfere with ground traffic. The exhaust from the engines is a
definate threat to other vehicles and pedestrians. The best reference
for LAV type vehicles would be Bladerunner. In that, they are flying
around and above the height of the BR skyscrapers, so, anywhere up to
several hundred feet. You'll find some interesting LAV stuff on
Blackjack's web page http://www.snafu.de/~dheaven/


There is also some more regarding LAV regulations, and home rules for
flight etc available on the TSCS (Traffic Speed Control Systems)
suggstions, which regulates Seattle traffic, and suggests some ideas for
controlling LAVs. The information I have, came from James McPherson,
Todd Montgomery and someone else, I can't remember what web page I got
it from, but I'd be happy to post it to you if you want it. It's only a
few k of text.


I'm not sure what FASA's regulations would be on LAVs as I can't find
anything in their material that really covers it. LAVs are used quite a
bit in the Cyberpunk 2020 material, so you might find a few clues in
there as well, but CP2020 uses a different propulsion system than FASA,
sticking closer to the Japanese Manga concept. I still find the film
Bladerunner the best point of reference though <g>

(Sorry Nightlife... I know, I mentioned _another_ film. Sigh...>

That covers civilian LAV vehicles.


AS regards the military variety, I seem to recall a reference in some
book or another that they are flown at 50m, to evade ground detection
and as a partial counter to any hostile forces (less targetting time).
Though I should imagine their operational height would be similar to
modern fighter-bombers, from 50m to several thousand. They would
logically have pressurised cabins, and independant oxygen supplies for
the occupants. So, the skies the limit really <grin>.


Safe operational height and speed would probably be governed by the
vehicles' payload. But I would suggest a minimum of 50m, it allows a
marginal area for error.


One thing I found useful for LAV operational use in military fashion was
the FASA game (not a plug, honest) Renegade Legion - "Centurion".
Although the games is based around Hover Tanks, not LAV's, it's a
reasonable reference <g>


--
__ \ | \ __
| | _` | __| | / _ \ \ / _ \ __ \ _` | _ \ __|
| | ( | | < ___ \ \ / __/ | | ( | __/ |
____/ \__,_|_| _|\_\ _/ _\ \_/ \___|_| _|\__, |\___|_|
A Dark Shadow in a Dark World |___/
Message no. 2
From: Midn Daniel O Fredrikson <m992148@****.NAVY.MIL>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 01:30:03 -0500
<big snip of civilian LAV>
>
> AS regards the military variety, I seem to recall a reference in some
> book or another that they are flown at 50m, to evade ground detection
> and as a partial counter to any hostile forces (less targetting time).
> Though I should imagine their operational height would be similar to
> modern fighter-bombers, from 50m to several thousand. They would
> logically have pressurised cabins, and independant oxygen supplies for
> the occupants. So, the skies the limit really <grin>.

Sorry, I really have got to disagree with you there... As I see it, a
LAV is basically a flying tank. If it is flying up to several thousand
feet, depending on only its thrust, either its fuel efficiency is going to
be almost nill, aeronautual science has increased to a point where
no-winged vehicles have good lift properties, or the LAV is powered by
some insane power source, like a fusion bottle (I read about
fusion-powered hover tanks in some novel). I think it will fly relatively
low to keep ground effect-type lift maximized. It is even possible,IMHO,
that LAVs have retractable wheels, so they can travel very slowly to
minimized thermal and sonic emitions.

> Safe operational height and speed would probably be governed by the
> vehicles' payload. But I would suggest a minimum of 50m, it allows a
> marginal area for error.

IMHO, height is going to depend on speed and terrain. Going across a
plain...drop down really low, angle your thrust way back, and go blazing
away. Rougher terrain will require greater height and slower speeds,
cause you have to react to faster changing altitudes, and since the
altitudes are varying more, your sensors for predicting the height in
front of you will have a shorter range, and your greater height will
require a reduction in the angle of the thrust (less ground-effect life)
to hold the LAV in the air, so less will be directed hindward. Of course,
if one could get ahold of a very accurate map of the terrain (ie spy
satilight), one could program the route into the guidence and make runs
with much lower tolerences for speed and altitude...

This is my guess...any thoughts?
Message no. 3
From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 16:27:27 +0000
In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.970321011200.24353A-100000@*****>, Midn Daniel
O Fredrikson <m992148@****.NAVY.MIL> writes
><big snip of civilian LAV>
>>
>> AS regards the military variety, I seem to recall a reference in some
>> book or another that they are flown at 50m, to evade ground detection
>> and as a partial counter to any hostile forces (less targetting time).
>> Though I should imagine their operational height would be similar to
>> modern fighter-bombers, from 50m to several thousand. They would
>> logically have pressurised cabins, and independant oxygen supplies for
>> the occupants. So, the skies the limit really <grin>.
>
>Sorry, I really have got to disagree with you there...

Fair enough, that seems a reasonable reaction <g>

>As I see it, a
>LAV is basically a flying tank.

There seem to be variations on the theme, with the Banshee as a ground
variant, and a poor description of the Boeing Eagle, which appears to be
a cross between LAVT and standard VT. The Eagle is compared to current
(205*) fighters, indicating an operational height beyond ground effect.

>If it is flying up to several thousand
>feet, depending on only its thrust, either its fuel efficiency is going to
>be almost nill,

Fuel efficiency is crap, 0.5km per litre. I can't really see the point
of the LAV Banshee, as it seems to be designed as a glorified hovercraft
without the skirts, with less fuel efficiency and reduced
manoeuverability, that's why I tend to treat it a bit more favourably.
My mistake in the above passage was "several thousand" it should have
read "several hundred" (sorry...) Though with an undefined LAV in the
form of the Eagle, who knows?

>aeronautual science has increased to a point where
>no-winged vehicles have good lift properties, or the LAV is powered by
>some insane power source, like a fusion bottle (I read about
>fusion-powered hover tanks in some novel).

The tanks used in Renegade Legion are based on fusion power, not
something too far beyond 2058 tech, as some Norwegian scientist reckons
he has a way of utilising fusion now (don't know the details, sorry)

>I think it will fly relatively
>low to keep ground effect-type lift maximized. It is even possible,IMHO,
>that LAVs have retractable wheels, so they can travel very slowly to
>minimized thermal and sonic emitions.

The Banshee is listed as having non-powered control wheels for more
stable manoeuvering, so you are right. I just find it a tad strange
that someone would design a tank, that relies on vectored thrust to
drive it along the ground. Massive fuel consumption, lighter armour
than a ground based vehicle, steerage problems at speed... Hmm, not such
a good thing. The only real advantage would be the extreme speed of the
thing.

The other variation on the theme, seems to be the mysterious thing known
as a T-bird. Can't find anything on those, but they also appear to use
vectored thrust, though posibly they're more like an aircraft (?)

The LAV that is stated as using ground effect is the CAS Stonewall. (p95
RBB)

>> Safe operational height and speed would probably be governed by the
>> vehicles' payload. But I would suggest a minimum of 50m, it allows a
>> marginal area for error.
>
>IMHO, height is going to depend on speed and terrain. Going across a
>plain...drop down really low, angle your thrust way back, and go blazing
>away. Rougher terrain will require greater height and slower speeds,
<snip>

Yeah, that seems quite reasonable. As I mentioned, I tend to use the
CP2020 and Manga view of LAV vehicles, with a light smattering of
Centurion, as the stats from FASA strike me as wasteful. The vehicles
aren't operationally viable for any combat, and as a scout vehicle, OK,
it's fast, but damned noisy, and at low altitude it's going to kick up
more dust than any other vehicle around, losing the surprise value of a
scout vehicle. All rather strange IMHO. I mean what's the point in a
scout vehicle thundering along at 1,000 klicks with a dusst cloud the
enemy can see a few miles away, and have plenty of time to hide? A bit
self defeating, and although the armour on a Banshee is reasonable, it's
certainly not up to scratch for any kind of serious engagement. Most
heavy/AV weapons are going to kill it.

>to hold the LAV in the air, so less will be directed hindward. Of course,
>if one could get ahold of a very accurate map of the terrain (ie spy
>satilight), one could program the route into the guidence and make runs
>with much lower tolerences for speed and altitude...
>
Satellite imaging is available. It's possible to get hold of some very
detailed maps/photographs on the net today, that situation is unlikely
to change drastically in the future, if anything it may well improve, so
tyour theory on terrain planning is quite feasible, without too much
hassle.

There's a statement in the RBB from some decker, that mentions a Banshee
charging around in Hell's Kitchen... Like nobody noticed? Hmm thinks...

<Sound of Harrier lifting off, and flying across trees.. pretty loud.
Lots of dust... Everybody in Puyallup/Redmond must be deaf & blind.>

The variation for tanks, that I use comes from Centurion, which uses the
following height limitations

Normal Flight = 1m from ground
Tree Top Flight = 20m from ground (ignores trees & low buildings)
Low Altitude* = 50m + from ground (ignores all LOS & terrain modifiers)

* Low altitude is necessary for utilising full thrust on vehicles.

I would think that city operation of LAV's would require some sort of
operational resrictions, because of the danger from the vectored
exhaust.

>This is my guess...any thoughts?

See above.
<Just my humble input.>

--
Avenger
Message no. 4
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 18:55:50 +0000
In message <5q+A2aA9wfMzEwg4@*******.demon.co.uk>, Avenger
<Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK> writes
>In article <3331B121.425C@****.datanet.hu>, Amper
><amper@****.datanet.hu> writes
>>Hail!
>>I'm Andrew Timar-Geng from Hungary. I play whit a rigger, his name is
>>Amper.
>>And 1 have a question: how high can a LAV fly?

>By the nature of their engines, they fly at a regulated height that
>won't interfere with ground traffic. The exhaust from the engines is a
>definate threat to other vehicles and pedestrians. The best reference
>for LAV type vehicles would be Bladerunner. In that, they are flying
>around and above the height of the BR skyscrapers, so, anywhere up to
>several hundred feet.

Not quite: LAVs are limited to low level by aerodynamics, they need
ground effect to boost their lift. You can 'hop' over obstacles by
pulling the nose up and briefly flying out of ground effect, and boost
that by using some extra thrust (afterburners, maybe?) to extend it: but
you're going to come back down.

>AS regards the military variety, I seem to recall a reference in some
>book or another that they are flown at 50m, to evade ground detection
>and as a partial counter to any hostile forces (less targetting time).
>Though I should imagine their operational height would be similar to
>modern fighter-bombers, from 50m to several thousand.

No way you could make several thousand, carrying the sort of armour and
weapons that a Banshee packs. If that were the case, why would you need
fixed wing aircraft?

>They would
>logically have pressurised cabins, and independant oxygen supplies for
>the occupants. So, the skies the limit really <grin>.

Disagree, but then I tried building a Banshee using Fire, Fusion and
Steel :)

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 5
From: Midn Daniel O Fredrikson <m992148@****.NAVY.MIL>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 17:39:13 -0500
<big snip>

>
> Fair enough, that seems a reasonable reaction <g>
>
Thanks ;)

> >As I see it, a
> >LAV is basically a flying tank.
>
> There seem to be variations on the theme, with the Banshee as a ground
> variant, and a poor description of the Boeing Eagle, which appears to be
> a cross between LAVT and standard VT. The Eagle is compared to current
> (205*) fighters, indicating an operational height beyond ground effect.
>
I honestly can't remember what was written about the Eagle, though I tend
to believe that their fighters are don't seem that powerful, in comparison
to, maybe the YF-22. Of course, that may be just how I am reading the
book...

> >If it is flying up to several thousand
> >feet, depending on only its thrust, either its fuel efficiency is going to
> >be almost nill,
>
> Fuel efficiency is crap, 0.5km per litre. I can't really see the point
> of the LAV Banshee, as it seems to be designed as a glorified hovercraft
> without the skirts, with less fuel efficiency and reduced
> manoeuverability, that's why I tend to treat it a bit more favourably.
> My mistake in the above passage was "several thousand" it should have
> read "several hundred" (sorry...) Though with an undefined LAV in the
> form of the Eagle, who knows?
>
Good point about the skirts. It does seem kind of weird. The only
question one would have to ask about skirts is how they limit max speed.
I don't know. Maybe retractable skirts for variable speed performance...

> >aeronautual science has increased to a point where
> >no-winged vehicles have good lift properties, or the LAV is powered by
> >some insane power source, like a fusion bottle (I read about
> >fusion-powered hover tanks in some novel).
>
> The tanks used in Renegade Legion are based on fusion power, not
> something too far beyond 2058 tech, as some Norwegian scientist reckons
> he has a way of utilising fusion now (don't know the details, sorry)
>
Cold fusion...yut. (dives for cover)

> >I think it will fly relatively
> >low to keep ground effect-type lift maximized. It is even possible,IMHO,
> >that LAVs have retractable wheels, so they can travel very slowly to
> >minimized thermal and sonic emitions.
>
> The Banshee is listed as having non-powered control wheels for more
> stable manoeuvering, so you are right. I just find it a tad strange
> that someone would design a tank, that relies on vectored thrust to
> drive it along the ground. Massive fuel consumption, lighter armour
> than a ground based vehicle, steerage problems at speed... Hmm, not such
> a good thing. The only real advantage would be the extreme speed of the
> thing.
>
Yep, is kind of weird. Armor might be good enough due to advances in
tech, but that is always a toss up. Fuel consumption is really bad
(and you thought the M-1 was a gas guzzler) Speed is really useful.
Attack the flanks, destroy supply lines. Probably pretty limited by its
detectability though...

> The other variation on the theme, seems to be the mysterious thing known
> as a T-bird. Can't find anything on those, but they also appear to use
> vectored thrust, though posibly they're more like an aircraft (?)
>

(shrug)

> The LAV that is stated as using ground effect is the CAS Stonewall. (p95
> RBB)
>
Big tank... wish there were more specs. Of course, if they had bothered
to write more down, we probably would be arguing over them right now...

> >> Safe operational height and speed would probably be governed by the
> >> vehicles' payload. But I would suggest a minimum of 50m, it allows a
> >> marginal area for error.
> >
> >IMHO, height is going to depend on speed and terrain. Going across a
> >plain...drop down really low, angle your thrust way back, and go blazing
> >away. Rougher terrain will require greater height and slower speeds,
> <snip>
>
> Yeah, that seems quite reasonable. As I mentioned, I tend to use the
> CP2020 and Manga view of LAV vehicles, with a light smattering of
> Centurion, as the stats from FASA strike me as wasteful. The vehicles
> aren't operationally viable for any combat, and as a scout vehicle, OK,
> it's fast, but damned noisy, and at low altitude it's going to kick up
> more dust than any other vehicle around, losing the surprise value of a
> scout vehicle. All rather strange IMHO. I mean what's the point in a
> scout vehicle thundering along at 1,000 klicks with a dusst cloud the
> enemy can see a few miles away, and have plenty of time to hide? A bit
> self defeating, and although the armour on a Banshee is reasonable, it's
> certainly not up to scratch for any kind of serious engagement. Most
> heavy/AV weapons are going to kill it.
>

And the value of the LAV as a scout is even less when you could have
long-range aerial stealth drones. See alot more, cover more area, be
harder to see, cheaper....hmm.. heck, you could even use them to vector in
smart munitions. That is what the military is trying to do now...

> >to hold the LAV in the air, so less will be directed hindward. Of course,
> >if one could get ahold of a very accurate map of the terrain (ie spy
> >satilight), one could program the route into the guidence and make runs
> >with much lower tolerences for speed and altitude...
> >
> Satellite imaging is available. It's possible to get hold of some very
> detailed maps/photographs on the net today, that situation is unlikely
> to change drastically in the future, if anything it may well improve, so
> tyour theory on terrain planning is quite feasible, without too much
> hassle.
>
> There's a statement in the RBB from some decker, that mentions a Banshee
> charging around in Hell's Kitchen... Like nobody noticed? Hmm thinks...
>
> <Sound of Harrier lifting off, and flying across trees.. pretty loud.
> Lots of dust... Everybody in Puyallup/Redmond must be deaf & blind.>
>
> The variation for tanks, that I use comes from Centurion, which uses the
> following height limitations
>
> Normal Flight = 1m from ground
> Tree Top Flight = 20m from ground (ignores trees & low buildings)
> Low Altitude* = 50m + from ground (ignores all LOS & terrain modifiers)
>
> * Low altitude is necessary for utilising full thrust on vehicles.
>
> I would think that city operation of LAV's would require some sort of
> operational resrictions, because of the danger from the vectored
> exhaust.
>
> >This is my guess...any thoughts?
>
> See above.
> <Just my humble input.>
>
> --
> Avenger
>

Sounds good to me...
Message no. 6
From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 01:25:01 +0000
In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.970321172600.18018D-100000@*****>, Midn Daniel
O Fredrikson <m992148@****.NAVY.MIL> writes
><big snip>
>
>>
>> Fair enough, that seems a reasonable reaction <g>
>>
>Thanks ;)

s'okay <g>

>> a cross between LAVT and standard VT. The Eagle is compared to current
>> (205*) fighters, indicating an operational height beyond ground effect.
>>
>I honestly can't remember what was written about the Eagle,

Very little, seems the chap writing the RBB couldn't make his mind up
either, so left it to speculation... Lots of nothing really. :)

>though I tend
>to believe that their fighters are don't seem that powerful, in comparison
>to, maybe the YF-22. Of course, that may be just how I am reading the
>book...

I haven't really paid that much attention to the aircraft in SR, as they
all seem rather daft. The GA choppers aren't too bad, but... So, I
tend to do strange things with stuff from other systems. :@)

>> Fuel efficiency is crap, 0.5km per litre. I can't really see the point
>> of the LAV Banshee, as it seems to be designed as a glorified hovercraft
>> without the skirts, with less fuel efficiency and reduced

>Good point about the skirts. It does seem kind of weird.

I thought so.

>The only
>question one would have to ask about skirts is how they limit max speed.
>I don't know. Maybe retractable skirts for variable speed performance...

I should imagine, looking at current hovercraft, that the skirts limit
the speed considerably, anything too high is likely to tear them to
shreds, as for retractable... interesting idea.

>> The tanks used in Renegade Legion are based on fusion power, not
>> something too far beyond 2058 tech, as some Norwegian scientist reckons
>> he has a way of utilising fusion now (don't know the details, sorry)
>>
>Cold fusion...yut. (dives for cover)

Ah, a person with similar thoughts to my own... <g>

>> drive it along the ground. Massive fuel consumption, lighter armour
>> than a ground based vehicle, steerage problems at speed... Hmm, not such
>> a good thing. The only real advantage would be the extreme speed of the
>> thing.
>>
>Yep, is kind of weird. Armor might be good enough due to advances in
>tech, but that is always a toss up.

Armour technology, alledgedly is supposed to keep up with penetration
tech, though I do believe it's failing badly, and armour penetration is
getting way beyond the ability of armour to keep pace. So, it's kinda
debateable whether armour would be that much more superior in 2058 when
compared to AT weaponry.

>Fuel consumption is really bad
>(and you thought the M-1 was a gas guzzler) Speed is really useful.
>Attack the flanks, destroy supply lines. Probably pretty limited by its
>detectability though...

The noise and dust kicked up by the Banshee would pretty much negate the
advantages of speed. In an assault situation, where the main force is
attacking, I can see uses for fast flanking vehicles, but it's highly
likely that they are going to be pretty useless in any heavy combat, and
as for their apparently designed purpose, a light scout, well...

>> The other variation on the theme, seems to be the mysterious thing known
>> as a T-bird. Can't find anything on those, but they also appear to use
>> vectored thrust, though posibly they're more like an aircraft (?)

>(shrug)

LOL... You're supposed to have an answer for that. :)

>> The LAV that is stated as using ground effect is the CAS Stonewall. (p95
>> RBB)
>>
>Big tank... wish there were more specs. Of course, if they had bothered
>to write more down, we probably would be arguing over them right now...

It would be nice if we could have a bit more information than the small
scribblings FASA stuck at the bottom of each piccie. Looking at the
Battletech Equipment Books, one page of text, one page of stats with a
piccie, seems a better arrangement than the present method. But then, I
guess this is Shadowrun, and military vehicles shouldn't figure too
highly in it <g>

<snip>
>> scout vehicle thundering along at 1,000 klicks with a dusst cloud the
>> enemy can see a few miles away, and have plenty of time to hide? A bit
>> self defeating, and although the armour on a Banshee is reasonable, it's
>> certainly not up to scratch for any kind of serious engagement. Most
>> heavy/AV weapons are going to kill it.
>
>And the value of the LAV as a scout is even less when you could have
>long-range aerial stealth drones.

Exactly, allowing for satellite surveilance, Tactical computers, relief
maps etc etc, the Banshee seems to be a waste of money. OK, people
waffle on in various books about the wonderful Banshee, but in all
honesty it strikes me as pretty useless.

>See alot more, cover more area, be
>harder to see, cheaper....hmm.. heck, you could even use them to vector in
>smart munitions. That is what the military is trying to do now...

Agreed.

>Sounds good to me...

Oh... Oh well, that killed this conversation <grin>


--
Avenger
Message no. 7
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 11:35:10 +0100
Avenger said on 16:27/21 Mar 97...

> Fuel efficiency is crap, 0.5km per litre.

But still better than that of many current (1990s) armored vehicles. For
example, an M1 MBT has about 2000 liters of fuel and a cruising range of
less than 500 km. That's .25 km/l (OK, it's got that gas turbine that uses
lots of fuel when idling, but for cruising range that's not all that
important I think).

> The tanks used in Renegade Legion are based on fusion power, not
> something too far beyond 2058 tech, as some Norwegian scientist reckons
> he has a way of utilising fusion now (don't know the details, sorry)

A few years ago there were some scientists who thought they'd done cold
fusion, but nobody could reproduce their experiments.

> The Banshee is listed as having non-powered control wheels for more
> stable manoeuvering, so you are right. I just find it a tad strange
> that someone would design a tank, that relies on vectored thrust to
> drive it along the ground. Massive fuel consumption, lighter armour
> than a ground based vehicle, steerage problems at speed... Hmm, not such
> a good thing. The only real advantage would be the extreme speed of the
> thing.

The way I see it, those wheels are like the wheels on a helicopter: so it
can taxi for short distances without having to take off and fly. Into and
out of hangars, for example.

> The other variation on the theme, seems to be the mysterious thing known
> as a T-bird. Can't find anything on those, but they also appear to use
> vectored thrust, though posibly they're more like an aircraft (?)

In first edition SR, these were called "Panzer" (German for "armor" or
"tank") but the name got changed to "Thunderbird" or
"T-bird" for short
in second edition. The reason for this is beyond me...
Anyway, the GMC Banshee is described as being a T-bird in SRII (page 252),
and a panzer in SRI. LAV is the term the Rigger Black Book uses for these
same vehicles.

> The vehicles aren't operationally viable for any combat, and as a scout
> vehicle, OK, it's fast, but damned noisy, and at low altitude it's going
> to kick up more dust than any other vehicle around, losing the surprise
> value of a scout vehicle. All rather strange IMHO.

Definitely. Speed is good for reconnaissance vehicles (look at the British
Scimitar and Sabre) but speed like a Banshee's seems a bit excessive,
especially with the noise and dust clouds its movement would generate. I
think it would also be very big for a recce vehicle, though so is an M3
Bradley and the US Army is happily using them (compare it to Scimitar
again, which is the size of a long wheel base Landrover).

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Lack of inspiration has prevented a witty quote from being placed here.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 8
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 11:35:10 +0100
Avenger said on 1:25/22 Mar 97...

> >Yep, is kind of weird. Armor might be good enough due to advances in
> >tech, but that is always a toss up.
>
> Armour technology, alledgedly is supposed to keep up with penetration
> tech, though I do believe it's failing badly, and armour penetration is
> getting way beyond the ability of armour to keep pace. So, it's kinda
> debateable whether armour would be that much more superior in 2058 when
> compared to AT weaponry.

IRL it's just about almost always easier to design a wepaon to penetrate
the latest (thickest/bestest) armor than it is to create armor to
withstand the newest weapons. Just look at penetration capabilities of
typical anti-tank missiles...
However, Fields of Fire tells us that in SR history there has been a major
breakthrough in armor tech, allowing it to gain the upper hand over weapon
design for the moment. Presumably, this is an explanation for the rather
weak performance of anti-vehicle weapons in SR :)

> Oh... Oh well, that killed this conversation <grin>

Pete Simms letting a conversation die before it's over? Could that be
another sign? :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Lack of inspiration has prevented a witty quote from being placed here.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 9
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 11:35:10 +0100
Paul J. Adam said on 18:55/21 Mar 97...

> Disagree, but then I tried building a Banshee using Fire, Fusion and
> Steel :)

I attempted to create an SR-style assault cannon using 3G3 once, when we
had a thread about how realistic they were. It didn't quite work out the
way SRII portrays them, as I recall...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Lack of inspiration has prevented a witty quote from being placed here.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 10
From: Midn Daniel O Fredrikson <m992148@****.NAVY.MIL>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 10:15:20 -0500
>
> > >Yep, is kind of weird. Armor might be good enough due to advances in
> > >tech, but that is always a toss up.
> >
> > Armour technology, alledgedly is supposed to keep up with penetration
> > tech, though I do believe it's failing badly, and armour penetration is
> > getting way beyond the ability of armour to keep pace. So, it's kinda
> > debateable whether armour would be that much more superior in 2058 when
> > compared to AT weaponry.
>
> IRL it's just about almost always easier to design a wepaon to penetrate
> the latest (thickest/bestest) armor than it is to create armor to
> withstand the newest weapons. Just look at penetration capabilities of
> typical anti-tank missiles...
> However, Fields of Fire tells us that in SR history there has been a major
> breakthrough in armor tech, allowing it to gain the upper hand over weapon
> design for the moment. Presumably, this is an explanation for the rather
> weak performance of anti-vehicle weapons in SR :)

Right now, there are very few anti-tank missles that would be capable of
penetrating the armor on the M1A2, excluding of course the Maverick.
Speaking of anti-vehicle weapons, I sure would love to know were FASA came
up with the idea the airborne weapons had to be lighter and not as
powerful as man portable ones. I wonder if they have ever compare the
warhead of the Dragon or TOW to the ones on the Hellfire or
Maverick...Makes one laugh.. Oh well...
Message no. 11
From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 14:33:08 +0000
In article <199703221033.LAA18727@**********.xs4all.nl>, Gurth
<gurth@******.NL> writes
>Avenger said on 1:25/22 Mar 97...
>
>> getting way beyond the ability of armour to keep pace. So, it's kinda
>> debateable whether armour would be that much more superior in 2058 when
>> compared to AT weaponry.

>However, Fields of Fire tells us that in SR history there has been a major
>breakthrough in armor tech, allowing it to gain the upper hand over weapon
>design for the moment. Presumably, this is an explanation for the rather
>weak performance of anti-vehicle weapons in SR :)

Yeah, I know, and without trying to restart a realism debate which is a
pointless exersize in a game, the book is a couple of years behind in
game time. After all it's 2058 now, and FOF is dated a bit earlier than
that <grin>

>> Oh... Oh well, that killed this conversation <grin>
>
>Pete Simms letting a conversation die before it's over? Could that be
>another sign? :)

Sign???? What is this with you and Dvixen and signs? Are you guys
getting all fortune teller on us im^h^h^h^h mortals?


--
Avenger
Message no. 12
From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 14:44:11 +0000
In article <199703221033.LAA18705@**********.xs4all.nl>, Gurth
<gurth@******.NL> writes
>Avenger said on 16:27/21 Mar 97...
>
>> Fuel efficiency is crap, 0.5km per litre.
>
>But still better than that of many current (1990s) armored vehicles. For
>example, an M1 MBT has about 2000 liters of fuel and a cruising range of
>less than 500 km. That's .25 km/l (OK, it's got that gas turbine that uses
>lots of fuel when idling, but for cruising range that's not all that
>important I think).

That's a fair comment, but using your advancement comment from earlier,
then logically powerplants for vehicles would be more fuel efficient
than current tech. So I guess the fuel efficiency of an M1 is
comparable to the Banshee, in other words, godawful.

>> The tanks used in Renegade Legion are based on fusion power, not
>> something too far beyond 2058 tech, as some Norwegian scientist reckons
>> he has a way of utilising fusion now (don't know the details, sorry)
>
>A few years ago there were some scientists who thought they'd done cold
>fusion, but nobody could reproduce their experiments.

That's it, yep, I thought it had gone rather quiet on that front.

>> a good thing. The only real advantage would be the extreme speed of the
>> thing.
>
>The way I see it, those wheels are like the wheels on a helicopter: so it
>can taxi for short distances without having to take off and fly. Into and
>out of hangars, for example.

That seems to be the indication that is made in the book, but it does
say "for more stable manoeuvering", now wether that is supposed to be at
low (i.e. taxiing) speeds or cruise, is not made clear. I would agree
with you tat taxiing seems to be the most logical use for these wheels.

>> The other variation on the theme, seems to be the mysterious thing known
>> as a T-bird. Can't find anything on those, but they also appear to use
>> vectored thrust, though posibly they're more like an aircraft (?)
>
>In first edition SR, these were called "Panzer" (German for
"armor" or
>"tank") but the name got changed to "Thunderbird" or
"T-bird" for short
>in second edition. The reason for this is beyond me...

No comment. Typical FASA <g>

>Anyway, the GMC Banshee is described as being a T-bird in SRII (page 252),
>and a panzer in SRI. LAV is the term the Rigger Black Book uses for these
>same vehicles.

Righto. So what are the T-Birds used in the novels then? ISTR that in
one book or another, they're used for hopping over the Aztlan border,
and one is used to transport some geek from one end of the statwes to
another?

>> to kick up more dust than any other vehicle around, losing the surprise
>> value of a scout vehicle. All rather strange IMHO.
>
>Definitely. Speed is good for reconnaissance vehicles (look at the British
>Scimitar and Sabre) but speed like a Banshee's seems a bit excessive,
>especially with the noise and dust clouds its movement would generate. I
>think it would also be very big for a recce vehicle, though so is an M3
>Bradley and the US Army is happily using them (compare it to Scimitar
>again, which is the size of a long wheel base Landrover).

Yeah, but then the scimitar and M1 don't use vectored thrust, so don't
make as much dust. Have you ever watched or been in the vicinity of a
Harrier when it lifts off? It's pretty impressive, the force of the
thrust stuffs all sorts of garbage into the air, in much the same way as
a helicopter hovering over sand... clouds of crap everywhere (depending
on how clean the aircrew keep the area). Stuff something like that inot
the US plains or a desert and you have an article that can be seen for
miles. A typical example is the amount of dust thrown up by an armoured
column (footage can be seen from the Gulf and WW2) Not particularly
useful for a scout vehicle. OK, it has a very high speed, but that's
not going to help it outrun a missile that the firer has had several
minutes to aim.

OK, I know I'm being a little petty about it, but the thing just doesn't
work for me. I may be wrong in rearranging the tech to suit my view of
what this thing should be like, but the hype surrounding the Banshee and
other LAVs doesn't seem warranted using Fasa's concept.

--
Avenger
Message no. 13
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 12:22:29 +0000
In message <dG6J9HAtTzMzEwGO@*******.demon.co.uk>, Avenger
<Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK> writes
>In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.970321172600.18018D-100000@*****>, Midn Daniel
>O Fredrikson <m992148@****.NAVY.MIL> writes
>>I honestly can't remember what was written about the Eagle,
>
>Very little, seems the chap writing the RBB couldn't make his mind up
>either, so left it to speculation... Lots of nothing really. :)

It's "a linear development of British Aerospace's 20th century Harrier
'jump jet'", suggesting it's a conventional aircraft able to make
vectored-thrust takeoffs and/or landings.

>>Yep, is kind of weird. Armor might be good enough due to advances in
>>tech, but that is always a toss up.
>
>Armour technology, alledgedly is supposed to keep up with penetration
>tech, though I do believe it's failing badly, and armour penetration is
>getting way beyond the ability of armour to keep pace. So, it's kinda
>debateable whether armour would be that much more superior in 2058 when
>compared to AT weaponry.

The reverse, actually: a sidebar quote from Fields of Fire, page 41:

"Too bad that on the high end, armour technology is outpacing armour-
piercing technology..."

Again, the problem with the Banshee is it needs to have enough thrust to
hover, and more armour means it has to carry more engines and more fuel,
so the extra armour is spread more thinly... it simply cannot pack the
same weight of armour and weaponry as something ground-bound.

As for the Stonewall, as far as I'm concerned that's a hose job by CAS
Intelligence :)



>
>>Fuel consumption is really bad
>>(and you thought the M-1 was a gas guzzler) Speed is really useful.
>>Attack the flanks, destroy supply lines. Probably pretty limited by its
>>detectability though...
>
>The noise and dust kicked up by the Banshee would pretty much negate the
>advantages of speed. In an assault situation, where the main force is
>attacking, I can see uses for fast flanking vehicles, but it's highly
>likely that they are going to be pretty useless in any heavy combat, and
>as for their apparently designed purpose, a light scout, well...
>
>>> The other variation on the theme, seems to be the mysterious thing known
>>> as a T-bird. Can't find anything on those, but they also appear to use
>>> vectored thrust, though posibly they're more like an aircraft (?)
>
>>(shrug)
>
>LOL... You're supposed to have an answer for that. :)
>
>>> The LAV that is stated as using ground effect is the CAS Stonewall. (p95
>>> RBB)
>>>
>>Big tank... wish there were more specs. Of course, if they had bothered
>>to write more down, we probably would be arguing over them right now...
>
>It would be nice if we could have a bit more information than the small
>scribblings FASA stuck at the bottom of each piccie. Looking at the
>Battletech Equipment Books, one page of text, one page of stats with a
>piccie, seems a better arrangement than the present method. But then, I
>guess this is Shadowrun, and military vehicles shouldn't figure too
>highly in it <g>
>
><snip>
>>> scout vehicle thundering along at 1,000 klicks with a dusst cloud the
>>> enemy can see a few miles away, and have plenty of time to hide? A bit
>>> self defeating, and although the armour on a Banshee is reasonable, it's
>>> certainly not up to scratch for any kind of serious engagement. Most
>>> heavy/AV weapons are going to kill it.
>>
>>And the value of the LAV as a scout is even less when you could have
>>long-range aerial stealth drones.
>
>Exactly, allowing for satellite surveilance, Tactical computers, relief
>maps etc etc, the Banshee seems to be a waste of money. OK, people
>waffle on in various books about the wonderful Banshee, but in all
>honesty it strikes me as pretty useless.
>
>>See alot more, cover more area, be
>>harder to see, cheaper....hmm.. heck, you could even use them to vector in
>>smart munitions. That is what the military is trying to do now...
>
>Agreed.
>
>>Sounds good to me...
>
>Oh... Oh well, that killed this conversation <grin>
>
>
>--
>Avenger

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 14
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 12:42:50 +0000
In message <U+qLzDAvbrMzEwEO@*******.demon.co.uk>, Avenger
<Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK> writes
>There seem to be variations on the theme, with the Banshee as a ground
>variant, and a poor description of the Boeing Eagle, which appears to be
>a cross between LAVT and standard VT. The Eagle is compared to current
>(205*) fighters, indicating an operational height beyond ground effect.

The Eagle's a derivative of the Harrier and gives every impression of
being a fighter aircraft.

>Fuel efficiency is crap, 0.5km per litre. I can't really see the point
>of the LAV Banshee, as it seems to be designed as a glorified hovercraft
>without the skirts, with less fuel efficiency and reduced
>manoeuverability, that's why I tend to treat it a bit more favourably.

Sort of a fusion of a M2 Bradley, an AH-64 and a F-16 :)

It's fast (in the right terrain), well-armed, and armoured to survive
infantry weapons: a good cavalry vehicle for raiding and aggressive
scouting (I don't see it as being much of a stealth platform, though:
covert recce's out. Use drones for that).

Terribly expensive for a job the Appaloosa or Red Ranger does better for
less hassle, though.

>The tanks used in Renegade Legion are based on fusion power, not
>something too far beyond 2058 tech, as some Norwegian scientist reckons
>he has a way of utilising fusion now (don't know the details, sorry)

If I get fusion and ducted fans, then a Banshee looks more practical,
but then why's it burning fuel?

>The Banshee is listed as having non-powered control wheels for more
>stable manoeuvering, so you are right. I just find it a tad strange
>that someone would design a tank, that relies on vectored thrust to
>drive it along the ground. Massive fuel consumption, lighter armour
>than a ground based vehicle, steerage problems at speed... Hmm, not such
>a good thing. The only real advantage would be the extreme speed of the
>thing.

Speed is life... I can see some uses, but don't try engaging tanks.

>The other variation on the theme, seems to be the mysterious thing known
>as a T-bird. Can't find anything on those, but they also appear to use
>vectored thrust, though posibly they're more like an aircraft (?)

T-birds _are_ LAVs - SRII page 252. The Denver set waxes lyrical on the
joys of running the Rockies in Banshees and similar.

>The LAV that is stated as using ground effect is the CAS Stonewall. (p95
>RBB)

Aargh! Not that thing! :)

I just don't believe in a flying MBT that mounts a railgun "equivalent
to a 180mm conventional". How the hell do you cope with the recoil? And
how are you generating the power for it, considering you have to pump
out enough thrust to remain airborne too?

>Satellite imaging is available. It's possible to get hold of some very
>detailed maps/photographs on the net today, that situation is unlikely
>to change drastically in the future, if anything it may well improve, so
>tyour theory on terrain planning is quite feasible, without too much
>hassle.

Terrain referenced navigation, as demonstrated by the BGM-109 Tomahawk
and the Tornado GR.4.

>I would think that city operation of LAV's would require some sort of
>operational resrictions, because of the danger from the vectored
>exhaust.

And then some. Not to mention the FOD hazard from usual city trash.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 15
From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 17:35:29 +0000
In article <JrgLx3AKP9MzEwmk@********.demon.co.uk>, "Paul J. Adam"
<shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK> writes
>In message <U+qLzDAvbrMzEwEO@*******.demon.co.uk>, Avenger
><Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK> writes

>>without the skirts, with less fuel efficiency and reduced
>>manoeuverability, that's why I tend to treat it a bit more favourably.
>
>Sort of a fusion of a M2 Bradley, an AH-64 and a F-16 :)

<grin> Not quite, but along those lines :)

>infantry weapons: a good cavalry vehicle for raiding and aggressive
>scouting

Aggressive scouting... Erm, hunting supply lines and killing soft
targets? Useful, but the noise and whathaveyou may defeat the
advantages it has.

>(I don't see it as being much of a stealth platform, though:
>covert recce's out. Use drones for that).

Agreed. :)

>Terribly expensive for a job the Appaloosa or Red Ranger does better for
>less hassle, though.

That's what strikes me as so strange about the thing. There are other
vehicles better equipped and qualified for the role it apparently fills.
It just doesn't make sense. It's almost as though someone thought "Oh
yeah, some LAV's would be cool", then realised that another game system
was using them, and chose to rearrange the idea slightly, but made a bit
of a mess of things. Maybe in RBB2 they'll clear up the problems, and
give us some "useful" information about the vehicles presented.

>>The tanks used in Renegade Legion are based on fusion power, not
>>something too far beyond 2058 tech, as some Norwegian scientist reckons
>>he has a way of utilising fusion now (don't know the details, sorry)
>
>If I get fusion and ducted fans, then a Banshee looks more practical,
>but then why's it burning fuel?

With fusion, it doesn't need to burn fuel, just waste water. :) It's
one of the few ways I could see the tank, and others like it becoming
more useable. So, the Banshee and a couple of additions from Centurion
got added, it meant I had to change the tech level a bit, but not
drastically I feel. Man portable fusion cannon are still beyond SR tech
<grin>


>>than a ground based vehicle, steerage problems at speed... Hmm, not such
>>a good thing. The only real advantage would be the extreme speed of the
>>thing.
>
>Speed is life... I can see some uses, but don't try engaging tanks.

Speed has very obvious uses, but I agree, in an engagement the Banshee
is likely to have serious problems.

>>as a T-bird. Can't find anything on those, but they also appear to use
>>vectored thrust, though posibly they're more like an aircraft (?)
>
>T-birds _are_ LAVs - SRII page 252. The Denver set waxes lyrical on the
>joys of running the Rockies in Banshees and similar.

This is where I start getting a bit strange about FASA and LAVs, they
blast them around Hells Kitchen, up and down the rockies, across the
Aztlan border and in a few other areas. Not atypical of something that
only has a metre ground clearance. It seems more logical to give them
an operational height of 50 m, than the implied 1-3m. If the
operational height of theses things is heavily limited to ground effect
use, then there must be a hell of a lot of wrecks in the rockies and
other places with their bases ripped out.

>>The LAV that is stated as using ground effect is the CAS Stonewall. (p95
>>RBB)
>
>Aargh! Not that thing! :)

Hateful isn't it. :)

>I just don't believe in a flying MBT that mounts a railgun "equivalent
>to a 180mm conventional". How the hell do you cope with the recoil? And
>how are you generating the power for it, considering you have to pump
>out enough thrust to remain airborne too?

What recoil? It's a railgun, utilising acceleration for propulsion (and
don't give me any of this cause and effect, action/reaction stuff)
<grin> But I do agree. If this particular article packs a railgun,
then why hasn't the tech transferred across to other combatant vehicles?

As for generating the power, ah.. well, now you've asked an interesting
question. Erm, fusion power plant maybe? :-P

>>tyour theory on terrain planning is quite feasible, without too much
>>hassle.
>
>Terrain referenced navigation, as demonstrated by the BGM-109 Tomahawk
>and the Tornado GR.4.

Exactly, so the tech in 2058 should provide a superior version of
present day facilities.

>>I would think that city operation of LAV's would require some sort of
>>operational resrictions, because of the danger from the vectored
>>exhaust.
>
>And then some. Not to mention the FOD hazard from usual city trash.

LOL...

--
Avenger
Message no. 16
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 16:07:32 +0000
In message <OqPNmGA7A$MzEwnu@*******.demon.co.uk>, Avenger
<Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK> writes
>Righto. So what are the T-Birds used in the novels then? ISTR that in
>one book or another, they're used for hopping over the Aztlan border,
>and one is used to transport some geek from one end of the statwes to
>another?

Mucho use for smuggling up the Rockies, and by various armed forces
hunting those smugglers (good training, I'd guess).

>Yeah, but then the scimitar and M1 don't use vectored thrust, so don't
>make as much dust. Have you ever watched or been in the vicinity of a
>Harrier when it lifts off? It's pretty impressive, the force of the
>thrust stuffs all sorts of garbage into the air, in much the same way as
>a helicopter hovering over sand... clouds of crap everywhere (depending
>on how clean the aircrew keep the area). Stuff something like that inot
>the US plains or a desert and you have an article that can be seen for
>miles. A typical example is the amount of dust thrown up by an armoured
>column (footage can be seen from the Gulf and WW2) Not particularly
>useful for a scout vehicle. OK, it has a very high speed, but that's
>not going to help it outrun a missile that the firer has had several
>minutes to aim.

I'd guess they might be useful as replacement for helicopter gunships
like the Apache, more than any other situation: the Banshee actually
makes a pretty decent 2050s version of the Mi-24 Hind. Except for being
fifty times the price, of course...

What puzzles me is how these vehicles could operate in woodland: can't
really smash through to any extent, can't get high enough to go over.

>OK, I know I'm being a little petty about it, but the thing just doesn't
>work for me. I may be wrong in rearranging the tech to suit my view of
>what this thing should be like, but the hype surrounding the Banshee and
>other LAVs doesn't seem warranted using Fasa's concept.

Nope, I agree too, the LAV concept is oversold. Serious ground vehicles
(not low-end cheapo stuff like the Devil Rat and Striker) would eat it
alive.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 17
From: "Paul J. Adam" <paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 16:01:15 +0000
In message <199703221033.LAA18705@**********.xs4all.nl>, Gurth
<gurth@******.NL> writes
>In first edition SR, these were called "Panzer" (German for
"armor" or
>"tank")

"Panzer" is simply armour. The German designation for "tank" is
"Panzerkampfwagen": Armoured war vehicle.

German designations have a likeable logic to them, such as the origin of
"Flak": it came from "Flieger Abwehr Kanone", or Flier-Killing Gun.

>Definitely. Speed is good for reconnaissance vehicles (look at the British
>Scimitar and Sabre) but speed like a Banshee's seems a bit excessive,
>especially with the noise and dust clouds its movement would generate. I
>think it would also be very big for a recce vehicle, though so is an M3
>Bradley and the US Army is happily using them (compare it to Scimitar
>again, which is the size of a long wheel base Landrover).

It's probably better compared to helicopters like the Apache, rather
than ground vehicles.

And the US do seem to like large and heavily armed recce vehicles, to
the detriment of their ability to do scouting.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 18
From: Midn Daniel O Fredrikson <m992148@****.NAVY.MIL>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 19:45:53 -0500
> >>without the skirts, with less fuel efficiency and reduced
> >>manoeuverability, that's why I tend to treat it a bit more favourably.
> >
> >Sort of a fusion of a M2 Bradley, an AH-64 and a F-16 :)
>
> <grin> Not quite, but along those lines :)

Ugh!! I get this image of a Bradley with wings, a pointed nose, and a
rotor blade on the top.. What a monster that would be... :)

> >infantry weapons: a good cavalry vehicle for raiding and aggressive
> >scouting
>
> Aggressive scouting... Erm, hunting supply lines and killing soft
> targets? Useful, but the noise and whathaveyou may defeat the
> advantages it has.
>
> >(I don't see it as being much of a stealth platform, though:
> >covert recce's out. Use drones for that).
>
> Agreed. :)
>
> >Terribly expensive for a job the Appaloosa or Red Ranger does better for
> >less hassle, though.
>
> That's what strikes me as so strange about the thing. There are other
> vehicles better equipped and qualified for the role it apparently fills.
> It just doesn't make sense. It's almost as though someone thought "Oh
> yeah, some LAV's would be cool", then realised that another game system
> was using them, and chose to rearrange the idea slightly, but made a bit
> of a mess of things. Maybe in RBB2 they'll clear up the problems, and
> give us some "useful" information about the vehicles presented.
>
There is always hope...


> >>The tanks used in Renegade Legion are based on fusion power, not
> >>something too far beyond 2058 tech, as some Norwegian scientist reckons
> >>he has a way of utilising fusion now (don't know the details, sorry)
> >
> >If I get fusion and ducted fans, then a Banshee looks more practical,
> >but then why's it burning fuel?
>
> With fusion, it doesn't need to burn fuel, just waste water. :) It's
> one of the few ways I could see the tank, and others like it becoming
> more useable. So, the Banshee and a couple of additions from Centurion
> got added, it meant I had to change the tech level a bit, but not
> drastically I feel. Man portable fusion cannon are still beyond SR tech
> <grin>
>
>
> >>than a ground based vehicle, steerage problems at speed... Hmm, not such
> >>a good thing. The only real advantage would be the extreme speed of the
> >>thing.
> >
> >Speed is life... I can see some uses, but don't try engaging tanks.
>
> Speed has very obvious uses, but I agree, in an engagement the Banshee
> is likely to have serious problems.
>
You could use the speed of it against tanks, but you would arm it totally
differently. Just arm it with several massive smart antitank missles.
The enemy tank is advanceing... jump these things over the lines and
sweep around the sides and back. The noise and dust makes the LAV not
terribly useful by itself, but get several in the area, and it will
probably be a real pain to keep them seperate, especially at the speed
they travel. The sound could even act as a psychological weapon...ie you
know there are these fast moving mini-tanks in the area, but you don't
know exactly where they are or where they are going. Could keep the
troops really jumpy. Also could use the signature of the LAV to distract
the enemy forces from the the main threats by running back and forth along
the flanks.. To really make the LAV useful, I think they would really
need a wider variation of weapons. You could make it into something like
really fast hummer, where it could be used for almost any purpose:
anti-tank, light flanker, medical evac, etc..


> >>as a T-bird. Can't find anything on those, but they also appear to use
> >>vectored thrust, though posibly they're more like an aircraft (?)
> >
> >T-birds _are_ LAVs - SRII page 252. The Denver set waxes lyrical on the
> >joys of running the Rockies in Banshees and similar.
>
> This is where I start getting a bit strange about FASA and LAVs, they
> blast them around Hells Kitchen, up and down the rockies, across the
> Aztlan border and in a few other areas. Not atypical of something that
> only has a metre ground clearance. It seems more logical to give them
> an operational height of 50 m, than the implied 1-3m. If the
> operational height of theses things is heavily limited to ground effect
> use, then there must be a hell of a lot of wrecks in the rockies and
> other places with their bases ripped out.
>
hmm... good point. I thought I read somewhere that they prefered to go
slowly through the rockies, because the increase in speed wasn't worth the
difference in detectability. I might be wrong though...

> >>The LAV that is stated as using ground effect is the CAS Stonewall. (p95
> >>RBB)
> >
> >Aargh! Not that thing! :)
>
> Hateful isn't it. :)
>
> >I just don't believe in a flying MBT that mounts a railgun "equivalent
> >to a 180mm conventional". How the hell do you cope with the recoil? And
> >how are you generating the power for it, considering you have to pump
> >out enough thrust to remain airborne too?
>
> What recoil? It's a railgun, utilising acceleration for propulsion (and
> don't give me any of this cause and effect, action/reaction stuff)
> <grin> But I do agree. If this particular article packs a railgun,
> then why hasn't the tech transferred across to other combatant vehicles?
>
> As for generating the power, ah.. well, now you've asked an interesting
> question. Erm, fusion power plant maybe? :-P
>
As for railguns, don't the Azes have a major sized one also? IMHO, recoil
probably would be the least of the problems.

Please correct me if I am way off, but isn't a railgun designed to be a
kinetic kill weapon, like a sabot. If that is so, what is the advantage
in having the 180mm round if you are useing a long-rod penetrator type
round. You might as well stay with the thinest round that you can. Less
air friction, less area of armor to push through, a greater proportion of
mass to area, etc. THe only advantage in a big shell is when you are
firing HEAT type shells. But if the tank is going to use them, why bother
with a railgun... I just don't get it.

> >>tyour theory on terrain planning is quite feasible, without too much
> >>hassle.
> >
> >Terrain referenced navigation, as demonstrated by the BGM-109 Tomahawk
> >and the Tornado GR.4.
>
> Exactly, so the tech in 2058 should provide a superior version of
> present day facilities.
>
> >>I would think that city operation of LAV's would require some sort of
> >>operational resrictions, because of the danger from the vectored
> >>exhaust.
> >
> >And then some. Not to mention the FOD hazard from usual city trash.
>
> LOL...
>

The thought just makes me cringe to think about it. "LAV taken out by
garbage can lid" :) How would one protect the air inlets. Those seem to
me to be the weakest point on the whole craft. Or the outlet. It can
just see it. You have this heavily armed LAV. Some jerk shoots a grenade
into the outlet and you find yourself laying on your side on the ground.
THat would be upseting...
Message no. 19
From: Midn Daniel O Fredrikson <m992148@****.NAVY.MIL>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 20:21:55 -0500
> In message <OqPNmGA7A$MzEwnu@*******.demon.co.uk>, Avenger
> <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK> writes
> >Righto. So what are the T-Birds used in the novels then? ISTR that in
> >one book or another, they're used for hopping over the Aztlan border,
> >and one is used to transport some geek from one end of the statwes to
> >another?
>
> Mucho use for smuggling up the Rockies, and by various armed forces
> hunting those smugglers (good training, I'd guess).
>
> >Yeah, but then the scimitar and M1 don't use vectored thrust, so don't
> >make as much dust. Have you ever watched or been in the vicinity of a
> >Harrier when it lifts off? It's pretty impressive, the force of the
> >thrust stuffs all sorts of garbage into the air, in much the same way as
> >a helicopter hovering over sand... clouds of crap everywhere (depending
> >on how clean the aircrew keep the area). Stuff something like that inot
> >the US plains or a desert and you have an article that can be seen for
> >miles. A typical example is the amount of dust thrown up by an armoured
> >column (footage can be seen from the Gulf and WW2) Not particularly
> >useful for a scout vehicle. OK, it has a very high speed, but that's
> >not going to help it outrun a missile that the firer has had several
> >minutes to aim.
>
> I'd guess they might be useful as replacement for helicopter gunships
> like the Apache, more than any other situation: the Banshee actually
> makes a pretty decent 2050s version of the Mi-24 Hind. Except for being
> fifty times the price, of course...

The banshe replace the Apache! You make me laugh (nicely though) The
Apache Longbow -- the variation the army is working on now.. would wipe
the ground with this thing.

Each apache carries 16 hellfires, as well as a 30mm cannon. THe Longbow
has radar on the top of its rotor, so it can scan the area without being
seen. It can hand this targeting data off to other Longbows so they can
fire without even seeing the target. So one chopper pokes its head over
the hill for 20 secs, drops down again, relays the target info, the
choppers fire, and you have 80 kills. can you say by by armor column...

>
> What puzzles me is how these vehicles could operate in woodland: can't
> really smash through to any extent, can't get high enough to go over.
>
> >OK, I know I'm being a little petty about it, but the thing just doesn't
> >work for me. I may be wrong in rearranging the tech to suit my view of
> >what this thing should be like, but the hype surrounding the Banshee and
> >other LAVs doesn't seem warranted using Fasa's concept.
>
> Nope, I agree too, the LAV concept is oversold. Serious ground vehicles
> (not low-end cheapo stuff like the Devil Rat and Striker) would eat it
> alive.
>
Got to agree. Speed is the only advantage they have, and it isn't a big
one.
Message no. 20
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 23:46:53 +0000
In message <q0IkRTAhhBNzEwq3@*******.demon.co.uk>, Avenger
<Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK> writes
>In article <JrgLx3AKP9MzEwmk@********.demon.co.uk>, "Paul J. Adam"
><shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK> writes
>>infantry weapons: a good cavalry vehicle for raiding and aggressive
>>scouting
>
>Aggressive scouting... Erm, hunting supply lines and killing soft
>targets? Useful, but the noise and whathaveyou may defeat the
>advantages it has.

Supply convoys don't usually have heavy defences, and provided the
Banshee can open fire from a kilometre or so away they probably won't
hear it over their own engines.

But again, you could do this with an Apache or an A-10 anyway, for a
fifth of the cost, so why bother?

>>Terribly expensive for a job the Appaloosa or Red Ranger does better for
>>less hassle, though.
>
>That's what strikes me as so strange about the thing. There are other
>vehicles better equipped and qualified for the role it apparently fills.
>It just doesn't make sense. It's almost as though someone thought "Oh
>yeah, some LAV's would be cool", then realised that another game system
>was using them, and chose to rearrange the idea slightly, but made a bit
>of a mess of things. Maybe in RBB2 they'll clear up the problems, and
>give us some "useful" information about the vehicles presented.

I very much hope so.

Maybe the LAV is to the 2050s what the battlecruiser was to the 1910s?
Lots of armed forces thinking "Wow! A really cool idea!" and jumping on
the bandwagon of fast, heavily-armed, lightly-armoured craft. We just
haven't had the 2050s version of Jutland yet :)

>Man portable fusion cannon are still beyond SR tech
><grin>

Oh, I don't know, you can build plasma guns at TL 10... <innocent smile>

>>T-birds _are_ LAVs - SRII page 252. The Denver set waxes lyrical on the
>>joys of running the Rockies in Banshees and similar.
>
>This is where I start getting a bit strange about FASA and LAVs, they
>blast them around Hells Kitchen, up and down the rockies, across the
>Aztlan border and in a few other areas. Not atypical of something that
>only has a metre ground clearance. It seems more logical to give them
>an operational height of 50 m, than the implied 1-3m. If the
>operational height of theses things is heavily limited to ground effect
>use, then there must be a hell of a lot of wrecks in the rockies and
>other places with their bases ripped out.

The Denver set does imply that this work requires lower speeds and
intensive, thorough planning. Personally I'd wonder why nobody was
making those runs in, say, helicopters or Cessnas, but I admit the idea
of the "Jammer's Interstate" is entertaining. It's also fun for
characters who fly for the UCAS Reseves, because it's a great live-fire
exercise area :)

>>Terrain referenced navigation, as demonstrated by the BGM-109 Tomahawk
>>and the Tornado GR.4.
>
>Exactly, so the tech in 2058 should provide a superior version of
>present day facilities.

Shouldn't be hard to do. Just limits your speed, so you can actually
clear those ridges instead of smacking into them.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 21
From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 18:30:07 +0000
In article <R2idWXBEPANzEw8$@********.demon.co.uk>, "Paul J. Adam"
<shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK> writes
>In message <OqPNmGA7A$MzEwnu@*******.demon.co.uk>, Avenger
><Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK> writes

>>and one is used to transport some geek from one end of the statwes to
>>another?
>
>Mucho use for smuggling up the Rockies, and by various armed forces
>hunting those smugglers (good training, I'd guess).

Avoid the obstacles while evading/pursuing at speed.. Yep, great
training, and with the added incentive of death if you fail.

>>useful for a scout vehicle. OK, it has a very high speed, but that's
>>not going to help it outrun a missile that the firer has had several
>>minutes to aim.
>
>I'd guess they might be useful as replacement for helicopter gunships
>like the Apache, more than any other situation: the Banshee actually
>makes a pretty decent 2050s version of the Mi-24 Hind. Except for being
>fifty times the price, of course...

Fifty times the price for something with less capability and less
firepower. Not much of a trade off really. I'm not sure if a
comparison is really that viable. The Apache and Hind, are a damn sight
quieter than this beastie as well. :)

>What puzzles me is how these vehicles could operate in woodland: can't
>really smash through to any extent, can't get high enough to go over.

There is a rumour (read somewhere in this list) that they can fly over
the trees in the Yucutan? Hmm, so the 1-43m off the ground theory bites
the dust and reopens my suggestions from Centurion. Though in
comparison, I'd rather use Renegade armour than the Banshee and it's
cousins.

>>what this thing should be like, but the hype surrounding the Banshee and
>>other LAVs doesn't seem warranted using Fasa's concept.
>
>Nope, I agree too, the LAV concept is oversold. Serious ground vehicles
>(not low-end cheapo stuff like the Devil Rat and Striker) would eat it
>alive.

Ah, now I understand why people paint teeth on the front of Strikers
<grin> Me, I rather like the tanks in Renegade Legion, change that
concept to a slightly different propulsion system, and hey presto, lots
of luverly armour for the military to kill people with :)

--
Avenger
Message no. 22
From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 18:38:30 +0000
In article <1go0zNAt9GNzEwZc@********.demon.co.uk>, "Paul J. Adam"
<shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK> writes
>In message <q0IkRTAhhBNzEwq3@*******.demon.co.uk>, Avenger
><Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK> writes

>>Aggressive scouting... Erm, hunting supply lines and killing soft
>>targets? Useful, but the noise and whathaveyou may defeat the
>>advantages it has.
>
>Supply convoys don't usually have heavy defences, and provided the
>Banshee can open fire from a kilometre or so away they probably won't
>hear it over their own engines.

Not sure on the range of the Banshee weapons actually. It uses rotary
cannon and HMGs so probably not a kilometer. Looks like the thing has
to get a bit closer than that.

>But again, you could do this with an Apache or an A-10 anyway, for a
>fifth of the cost, so why bother?

And with more versatility. Missiles appear to have a greater range than
a rotary cannon, and allows the chopper to carry a payload that will
enable it to engage hard and soft targets, with better maneouverability
added in.

OK, the armour isn't great, the speed is lower, but I'll take an
Apache/A10/Jaguar over one of these any day.

>>of a mess of things. Maybe in RBB2 they'll clear up the problems, and
>>give us some "useful" information about the vehicles presented.
>
>I very much hope so.

We can but pray. :)

>Maybe the LAV is to the 2050s what the battlecruiser was to the 1910s?
>Lots of armed forces thinking "Wow! A really cool idea!" and jumping on
>the bandwagon of fast, heavily-armed, lightly-armoured craft. We just
>haven't had the 2050s version of Jutland yet :)

LOL... <too busy sniggering to think of a sensible comment>

>>Man portable fusion cannon are still beyond SR tech
>><grin>
>
>Oh, I don't know, you can build plasma guns at TL 10... <innocent smile>

I'm not going to answer that. I remember the last conversation over
this type of weapon <grin>

>>operational height of theses things is heavily limited to ground effect
>>use, then there must be a hell of a lot of wrecks in the rockies and
>>other places with their bases ripped out.
>
>The Denver set does imply that this work requires lower speeds and
>intensive, thorough planning.

So one takes a machine capable of 1k klicks per hour at a cost of 10m
nuyen, and go slow. Duh! Not exactly ideal is it?

>Personally I'd wonder why nobody was
>making those runs in, say, helicopters or Cessnas, but I admit the idea
>of the "Jammer's Interstate" is entertaining.

The Jammer's Interstate would be just as amusing using Lear jets and
such like. Without the intrinsic "rock" threats. :)

>It's also fun for
>characters who fly for the UCAS Reseves, because it's a great live-fire
>exercise area :)

OK, you got me here. I can see where that would be _very_ useful. Keep
the UCAS troops up to speed on their target practice by blowing away
very expensive slow moving smugglers. Yeah! I'll join that turkey
shot. :)

>>Exactly, so the tech in 2058 should provide a superior version of
>>present day facilities.
>
>Shouldn't be hard to do. Just limits your speed, so you can actually
>clear those ridges instead of smacking into them.

But boss, they look so pretty smeared on the rocks like that. <g>

--
Avenger
Message no. 23
From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 18:48:47 +0000
In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.970322191142.11949A-100000@*****>, Midn Daniel
O Fredrikson <m992148@****.NAVY.MIL> writes

>> >Sort of a fusion of a M2 Bradley, an AH-64 and a F-16 :)
>>
>> <grin> Not quite, but along those lines :)
>
>Ugh!! I get this image of a Bradley with wings, a pointed nose, and a
>rotor blade on the top.. What a monster that would be... :)

Scarey isn't it. Don't you just hate people who are wannabe SF model
makers <grin>

>> Aggressive scouting... Erm, hunting supply lines and killing soft
>> Speed has very obvious uses, but I agree, in an engagement the Banshee
>> is likely to have serious problems.
>>
>You could use the speed of it against tanks, but you would arm it totally
>differently. Just arm it with several massive smart antitank missles.

The problem with that, is that FASA have seen fit to reduce the
capability of vehicle mounted weapons, and increase man portable. Which
means a foot slogger will carry a better tank killer missile, than the
damn tank can pack... go figure?

<snip tactical suggestion>
>need a wider variation of weapons. You could make it into something like
>really fast hummer, where it could be used for almost any purpose:
>anti-tank, light flanker, medical evac, etc..

Useful, the only thing with it is that the craft itself is highly
vulnerable to attack, in rough terrain it's speed is limited, making it
an easier target for an infantry kill. Also, it has the added problem
of being a sitting duck for air support. With no anti air capabilities
beyond the machine guns.

>> operational height of theses things is heavily limited to ground effect
>> use, then there must be a hell of a lot of wrecks in the rockies and
>> other places with their bases ripped out.
>>
>hmm... good point. I thought I read somewhere that they prefered to go
>slowly through the rockies, because the increase in speed wasn't worth the
>difference in detectability. I might be wrong though...

Fair enough, but as Paul suggested, that being the case, why use a very
fast LAV when a fast aircraft or chopper is better, and doesn't cost
10m

>> As for generating the power, ah.. well, now you've asked an interesting
>> question. Erm, fusion power plant maybe? :-P
>>
>As for railguns, don't the Azes have a major sized one also? IMHO, recoil
>probably would be the least of the problems.

Powering the damn thing is the major problem, I'm not convinced that
recoil is something that needs to be factored into a railgun. Though
there are obvious arguments why it should be. :)

>Please correct me if I am way off, but isn't a railgun designed to be a
>kinetic kill weapon, like a sabot.

No idea. I have a vision of the things firing solids. The bigger the
gun, the bigger the "rock".

>If that is so, what is the advantage
>in having the 180mm round if you are useing a long-rod penetrator type
>round. You might as well stay with the thinest round that you can. Less
>air friction, less area of armor to push through, a greater proportion of
>mass to area, etc. THe only advantage in a big shell is when you are
>firing HEAT type shells. But if the tank is going to use them, why bother
>with a railgun... I just don't get it.

Neither do I. Never mind, there are alterantives <g>

>The thought just makes me cringe to think about it. "LAV taken out by
>garbage can lid" :)

Grin...

>How would one protect the air inlets. Those seem to
>me to be the weakest point on the whole craft.

Grates, mesh coverings, assorted flanges... Dunno. :)

>Or the outlet. It can
>just see it. You have this heavily armed LAV. Some jerk shoots a grenade
>into the outlet and you find yourself laying on your side on the ground.
>THat would be upseting...

And we all know that there are "hundreds" of jerks in Seattle with
grenades and their assorted launchers <grin>


--
Avenger
Message no. 24
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 20:34:46 +0100
Paul J. Adam said on 16:01/22 Mar 97...

> "Panzer" is simply armour. The German designation for "tank" is
> "Panzerkampfwagen": Armoured war vehicle.

Armored Combat Vehicle, you mean. AFAIK "Panzer" does get used
(especially by Americans :) to refer to tanks specifically, though.

> German designations have a likeable logic to them, such as the origin of
> "Flak": it came from "Flieger Abwehr Kanone", or Flier-Killing
Gun.

Those are the comprehensible ones...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Lack of inspiration has prevented a witty quote from being placed here.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 25
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 20:34:46 +0100
Avenger said on 14:44/22 Mar 97...

> Righto. So what are the T-Birds used in the novels then?

I don't think I've ever read a novel with a T-bird in it, so I can't even
speculate on this.

> Yeah, but then the scimitar and M1 don't use vectored thrust, so don't
> make as much dust. Have you ever watched or been in the vicinity of a
> Harrier when it lifts off?

Yep.

> It's pretty impressive, the force of the thrust stuffs all sorts of
> garbage into the air, in much the same way as a helicopter hovering over
> sand... clouds of crap everywhere (depending on how clean the aircrew
> keep the area). Stuff something like that inot the US plains or a
> desert and you have an article that can be seen for miles.

Don't forget the noise, either. A normal jet aircraft is loud when it
flies over, but a hovering Harrier appears to make more noise, because
it's coming more or less straight down rather that going over your head. A
Banshee wouldn't exactly be quiet.

> A typical example is the amount of dust thrown up by an armoured
> column (footage can be seen from the Gulf and WW2)

Exhaust smokescreen equipment is also a good example (used by some tanks,
fuel is injected into the exhaust to create thick smoke). When the tank
moves, you can spot it at the end of the screen, just like a vehicle
moving at high speed through loose sand is always at the end of its very
own dust cloud.

> Not particularly useful for a scout vehicle. OK, it has a very high
> speed, but that's not going to help it outrun a missile that the firer
> has had several minutes to aim.

Not many things have outrun well-aimed missiles, I think. Cover is usually
a better option :)

> OK, I know I'm being a little petty about it, but the thing just doesn't
> work for me. I may be wrong in rearranging the tech to suit my view of
> what this thing should be like, but the hype surrounding the Banshee and
> other LAVs doesn't seem warranted using Fasa's concept.

OTOH, it's a cool enough concept for use in a cyberpunk/SciFi environment,
whether it would work IRL or not...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Lack of inspiration has prevented a witty quote from being placed here.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 26
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 20:34:46 +0100
Avenger said on 14:33/22 Mar 97...

> >Pete Simms letting a conversation die before it's over? Could that be
> >another sign? :)
>
> Sign???? What is this with you and Dvixen and signs? Are you guys
> getting all fortune teller on us im^h^h^h^h mortals?

It got started a few months ago when several unusual things happened,
which could be interpreted as "end of the world" signs... Sascha didn't
quote a rule, I got a rule wrong, and I think David Buehrer also did
something he normally doesn't (like not post an untested house-rule). Then
I predicted the return of the Old Ones (Hayden, Doom, Rat, and JD).

A few days later, Stainless Steel Rat showed up again...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Lack of inspiration has prevented a witty quote from being placed here.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 27
From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 20:53:24 +0000
In article <199703231933.UAA27797@**********.xs4all.nl>, Gurth
<gurth@******.NL> writes
>Avenger said on 14:44/22 Mar 97...

>> keep the area). Stuff something like that inot the US plains or a
>> desert and you have an article that can be seen for miles.
>
>Don't forget the noise, either. A normal jet aircraft is loud when it
>flies over, but a hovering Harrier appears to make more noise, because
>it's coming more or less straight down rather that going over your head. A
>Banshee wouldn't exactly be quiet.

Noise was an integral part of the conversation. And it was agreed that
any kind of stealth scouting rather than hostile, would be useless for
this vehicle.

>moves, you can spot it at the end of the screen, just like a vehicle
>moving at high speed through loose sand is always at the end of its very
>own dust cloud.

Exactly. :)

>Not many things have outrun well-aimed missiles, I think. Cover is usually
>a better option :)

An interesting concept for the Banshee, find cover, and then try not to
let the whole world know you're in it. <grin>

>> what this thing should be like, but the hype surrounding the Banshee and
>> other LAVs doesn't seem warranted using Fasa's concept.
>
>OTOH, it's a cool enough concept for use in a cyberpunk/SciFi environment,
>whether it would work IRL or not...

Agreed totally. But then the way they're utilised in SR isn't logical
for SF either. The apparent stats are a tad on the silly side, the
information hinted at is almost useless, and there is nothing really
solid to agree that they are a cool idea for SR. Taking the same
concept from Cyberpunk, Rifts or Renegade Legion, and you've got a good
idea. This is what puzzles me so much, FASA produced the Renegade
Legion games, yet made such a mess of the LAVs in Shadowrun.
Strangeness. :)


--
Avenger
Message no. 28
From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 20:45:07 +0000
In article <199703231933.UAA27788@**********.xs4all.nl>, Gurth
<gurth@******.NL> writes
>Avenger said on 14:33/22 Mar 97...
>
>> Sign???? What is this with you and Dvixen and signs? Are you guys
>> getting all fortune teller on us im^h^h^h^h mortals?
>
>It got started a few months ago when several unusual things happened,
>which could be interpreted as "end of the world" signs... Sascha didn't
>quote a rule, I got a rule wrong, and I think David Buehrer also did
>something he normally doesn't (like not post an untested house-rule). Then
>I predicted the return of the Old Ones (Hayden, Doom, Rat, and JD).
>
>A few days later, Stainless Steel Rat showed up again...

Ah, I'm beginning to understand. Well, we have 14 years until the end
of the world. December 11, 2012. According to the Mayans anyway. :)

Which means that JD, and the the rest have plenty of time to return
before it's too late. Unless Microsoft really do crash the
internet/matrix in between now and then <grin>

--
Avenger
Message no. 29
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 20:14:04 +0000
In message <li1VzMAmiXNzEwro@*******.demon.co.uk>, Avenger
<Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK> writes
>In article <1go0zNAt9GNzEwZc@********.demon.co.uk>, "Paul J. Adam"
><shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK> writes
>>Supply convoys don't usually have heavy defences, and provided the
>>Banshee can open fire from a kilometre or so away they probably won't
>>hear it over their own engines.
>
>Not sure on the range of the Banshee weapons actually. It uses rotary
>cannon and HMGs so probably not a kilometer. Looks like the thing has
>to get a bit closer than that.

An autocannon gives you five Ks maximum range, so you can stand off
outside most defensive weapons. Still, SR2's weapon ranges are badly
broken anyway :)

There's no reason an AH64 couldn't do the same, though, much cheaper
with lower signature, and fixed-wing aircraft carry more payload further
with less fuel, and have the option of flying above AAA and manpack
SAMs.

>>Oh, I don't know, you can build plasma guns at TL 10... <innocent smile>
>
>I'm not going to answer that. I remember the last conversation over
>this type of weapon <grin>

Keep an eye on ShadowTK :) They aren't _that_ good compared to, say, a
Ballista missile launcher, but they are fun :)

>>The Denver set does imply that this work requires lower speeds and
>>intensive, thorough planning.
>
>So one takes a machine capable of 1k klicks per hour at a cost of 10m
>nuyen, and go slow. Duh! Not exactly ideal is it?

But it looks cool, Pete, it looks cool! Never mind that a C-130 with
carefully-faked flight plan could make ten times the profit for a
fraction of the cost: running T-birds up the Rockies is where the
glamour is.

>>It's also fun for
>>characters who fly for the UCAS Reseves, because it's a great live-fire
>>exercise area :)
>
>OK, you got me here. I can see where that would be _very_ useful. Keep
>the UCAS troops up to speed on their target practice by blowing away
>very expensive slow moving smugglers. Yeah! I'll join that turkey
>shot. :)

We got the targets, let's use them :) All in the name of law and order,
too.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 30
From: Midn Daniel O Fredrikson <m992148@****.NAVY.MIL>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 17:01:40 -0500
>
> >> >Sort of a fusion of a M2 Bradley, an AH-64 and a F-16 :)
> >>
> >> <grin> Not quite, but along those lines :)
> >
> >Ugh!! I get this image of a Bradley with wings, a pointed nose, and a
> >rotor blade on the top.. What a monster that would be... :)
>
> Scarey isn't it. Don't you just hate people who are wannabe SF model
> makers <grin>
>
> >> Aggressive scouting... Erm, hunting supply lines and killing soft
> >> Speed has very obvious uses, but I agree, in an engagement the Banshee
> >> is likely to have serious problems.
> >>
> >You could use the speed of it against tanks, but you would arm it totally
> >differently. Just arm it with several massive smart antitank missles.
>
> The problem with that, is that FASA have seen fit to reduce the
> capability of vehicle mounted weapons, and increase man portable. Which
> means a foot slogger will carry a better tank killer missile, than the
> damn tank can pack... go figure?

I find that so funny. Compare the TOW2A (one of the latest varients of
the most popular antitank missle ever made) to the Maverick (a
antitank/antiship missle used by USMC, USAF,and USN) The TOW2A has a dual
shaped charge warhead (for defeating reactive armor). The total warhead
is about 10 lbs. The Airforce version of the maverick packs a 125lb
shaped charge. The Marine version has a 300lb warhead.

Funny story...in the gulf war, it was easy to tell the difference between
T-72 that got hit with a TOW or Hellfire to one that got hit with a
Maverick. The ones hit with a TOW or Hellfire looked fine from the
outside, except the had a 2 inch hole somewhere in the side. The insides
to the tanks would be charred black. The tanks that got hit by a
Maverick, well you couldn't find much of them. There would be a blackened
circle with a few pieces of crumpled metal. Not many things can survive a
direct hit from a maverick... yut!! :)

>
> <snip tactical suggestion>
> >need a wider variation of weapons. You could make it into something like
> >really fast hummer, where it could be used for almost any purpose:
> >anti-tank, light flanker, medical evac, etc..
>
> Useful, the only thing with it is that the craft itself is highly
> vulnerable to attack, in rough terrain it's speed is limited, making it
> an easier target for an infantry kill. Also, it has the added problem
> of being a sitting duck for air support. With no anti air capabilities
> beyond the machine guns.
>
That is a major weakness, but there could be varients that have anti-air
capabilities. There are hummers running around with bunches of stingers
and .50 machine guns that act a close range anti-air. I suppose you could
do something similiar. <Shrug>

> >> operational height of theses things is heavily limited to ground effect
> >> use, then there must be a hell of a lot of wrecks in the rockies and
> >> other places with their bases ripped out.
> >>
> >hmm... good point. I thought I read somewhere that they prefered to go
> >slowly through the rockies, because the increase in speed wasn't worth the
> >difference in detectability. I might be wrong though...
>
> Fair enough, but as Paul suggested, that being the case, why use a very
> fast LAV when a fast aircraft or chopper is better, and doesn't cost
> 10m
>
The cost difference is debatable. I have always thought that the cost for
the fighters and helicopters are low, but that is open to debate. How
much is a F-15 now days. 40-50 million.

> >> As for generating the power, ah.. well, now you've asked an interesting
> >> question. Erm, fusion power plant maybe? :-P
> >>
> >As for railguns, don't the Azes have a major sized one also? IMHO, recoil
> >probably would be the least of the problems.
>
> Powering the damn thing is the major problem, I'm not convinced that
> recoil is something that needs to be factored into a railgun. Though
> there are obvious arguments why it should be. :)

Recoil can be taken care of. It wouldn't be that much different from a
normal cannon...

>
> >Please correct me if I am way off, but isn't a railgun designed to be a
> >kinetic kill weapon, like a sabot.
>
> No idea. I have a vision of the things firing solids. The bigger the
> gun, the bigger the "rock".
>
> >If that is so, what is the advantage
> >in having the 180mm round if you are useing a long-rod penetrator type
> >round. You might as well stay with the thinest round that you can. Less
> >air friction, less area of armor to push through, a greater proportion of
> >mass to area, etc. THe only advantage in a big shell is when you are
> >firing HEAT type shells. But if the tank is going to use them, why bother
> >with a railgun... I just don't get it.
>
> Neither do I. Never mind, there are alterantives <g>
>

Yep. If you don't understand, just complain... :)

> >The thought just makes me cringe to think about it. "LAV taken out by
> >garbage can lid" :)
>
> Grin...
>
> >How would one protect the air inlets. Those seem to
> >me to be the weakest point on the whole craft.
>
> Grates, mesh coverings, assorted flanges... Dunno. :)
>

<shrug> still seems risky

> >Or the outlet. It can
> >just see it. You have this heavily armed LAV. Some jerk shoots a grenade
> >into the outlet and you find yourself laying on your side on the ground.
> >THat would be upseting...
>
> And we all know that there are "hundreds" of jerks in Seattle with
> grenades and their assorted launchers <grin>

Ugh...don't remind me. My group has one member whose first reaction to
anything is shoot a grenade... Unfortunately, people have started
shooting back... I hate grenades...
Message no. 31
From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 22:32:32 +0000
In article <xugVwbAM8YNzEwZq@********.demon.co.uk>, "Paul J. Adam"
<shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK> writes

>>Not sure on the range of the Banshee weapons actually. It uses rotary
>>cannon and HMGs so probably not a kilometer. Looks like the thing has
>>to get a bit closer than that.
>
>An autocannon gives you five Ks maximum range,

It does? <desperately scrabbles through books> Where?

>so you can stand off
>outside most defensive weapons. Still, SR2's weapon ranges are badly
>broken anyway :)

Ah, RL vs SF huh? Are you telling me that a 30mm autocannon on a scout
has a five klick range? I'm beginning to feel sorry for truck convoys.
<g>

>There's no reason an AH64 couldn't do the same, though, much cheaper
>with lower signature, and fixed-wing aircraft carry more payload further
>with less fuel, and have the option of flying above AAA and manpack
>SAMs.

Or the Yellow Jacket/Wasp. Though less than the capability of an AH64,
they're not bad, or alternatively there's the updated Apache from
CP2020...

>>I'm not going to answer that. I remember the last conversation over
>>this type of weapon <grin>
>
>Keep an eye on ShadowTK :) They aren't _that_ good compared to, say, a
>Ballista missile launcher, but they are fun :)

You can't do that! Plasma weapons on Stk? Blasphemy... Oh 'ang on, I
forgot, you'#re one of those corporate wannabes <grin>


>>So one takes a machine capable of 1k klicks per hour at a cost of 10m
>>nuyen, and go slow. Duh! Not exactly ideal is it?
>
>But it looks cool, Pete, it looks cool! Never mind that a C-130 with
>carefully-faked flight plan could make ten times the profit for a
>fraction of the cost: running T-birds up the Rockies is where the
>glamour is.

OK, but does it look as cool as say a Liberator, at full thrust, with a
40mm laser, 150mm main Gauss autocannon, 50mm secondary coaxial Gauss
autocannon, 3 Vulcan rotary cannon and two 4 pack TVLGs with 80 to 70
points of armour? <grin> and a snip at a mere 1,634,350 <evil grin>
and... decent flight characteristics. And that's just an example of many
others.

>>OK, you got me here. I can see where that would be _very_ useful. Keep
>>the UCAS troops up to speed on their target practice by blowing away
>>very expensive slow moving smugglers. Yeah! I'll join that turkey
>>shot. :)
>
>We got the targets, let's use them :) All in the name of law and order,
>too.

And that makes it even better. Adds a nice percentage to the yearly
crime statistics. "Look everybody, see we are making a difference." :)


--
Avenger
Message no. 32
From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 22:46:38 +0000
In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.970323160823.26696A-100000@*****>, Midn Daniel
O Fredrikson <m992148@****.NAVY.MIL> writes

>> means a foot slogger will carry a better tank killer missile, than the
>> damn tank can pack... go figure?
>
>I find that so funny.

Me too :)

>Compare the TOW2A (one of the latest varients of
>the most popular antitank missle ever made) to the Maverick (a
>antitank/antiship missle used by USMC, USAF,and USN) The TOW2A has a dual
>shaped charge warhead (for defeating reactive armor). The total warhead
>is about 10 lbs. The Airforce version of the maverick packs a 125lb
>shaped charge. The Marine version has a 300lb warhead.

Would that be the standard maverick, ir or tv guided? Or are they all
standard now?

I do agree though, I'm puzzled as to the logic of the decision. OK, we
don't play the game for ultra realism, but a *little* logic would seem
to be worthwhile.

>Maverick, well you couldn't find much of them. There would be a blackened
>circle with a few pieces of crumpled metal. Not many things can survive a
>direct hit from a maverick... yut!! :)

Yep, I've played Gunship 2000, I know what a maverick can do <grin>

>> an easier target for an infantry kill. Also, it has the added problem
>> of being a sitting duck for air support. With no anti air capabilities
>> beyond the machine guns.
>>
>That is a major weakness, but there could be varients that have anti-air
>capabilities. There are hummers running around with bunches of stingers
>and .50 machine guns that act a close range anti-air. I suppose you could
>do something similiar. <Shrug>

Maybe. I guess take away the main armament, stick a twinned Vigilante
rotary cannon, or similar into it, and it would give some AA
capabilities, but not as efficient as a decent SAM pack.

>> Fair enough, but as Paul suggested, that being the case, why use a very
>> fast LAV when a fast aircraft or chopper is better, and doesn't cost
>> 10m
>>
>The cost difference is debatable. I have always thought that the cost for
>the fighters and helicopters are low, but that is open to debate. How
>much is a F-15 now days. 40-50 million.

Around about. If you take into account the advances in composite
materials in 2058, ceramic components in engines (better heat, better
performance) then the costs of aircraft can drop some, but the same
should be reflected for ground vehicles. There are little discrepencies
like that but I suppose the logic could be argued that it's more likely
for a group of players to attempt to get hold of a banshee than a
fighter aircraft, or ground attack variant. Maybe that's why the
pricing system is so off kilter.

>> Powering the damn thing is the major problem, I'm not convinced that
>> recoil is something that needs to be factored into a railgun. Though
>> there are obvious arguments why it should be. :)
>
>Recoil can be taken care of. It wouldn't be that much different from a
>normal cannon...

The current vehicles seem to cope admirably with the main armament
today, with most MBTs capable of firing main gun on the move, that
indicates that gyroscopic control and recoil is dealt with sufficiently
to allow for accurate control of the weapon. Transferring that to
23058, it would be reasonably safe to pretty much ignore any recoil from
a railgun, unless of course some munch decided to shoulder fire one.
<grin>

>> Neither do I. Never mind, there are alterantives <g>
>>
>
>Yep. If you don't understand, just complain... :)

That's the one. :)
You got it in one. Have a cornflake as a prize. :)

>> And we all know that there are "hundreds" of jerks in Seattle with
>> grenades and their assorted launchers <grin>
>
>Ugh...don't remind me. My group has one member whose first reaction to
>anything is shoot a grenade...

I had that problem for a little while, until my players noticed that the
people on the streets didn't like them much, and Lone Star kept hassling
their contacts and such like. They took a subtle hint, and quit with
the silly stuff.

>Unfortunately, people have started
>shooting back... I hate grenades...

They have their uses, but I've never understood the fascination with
carrying a 30mm grenade launcher on a run in town. Not exactly subtle,
and certainly not as useful as a silenced machine pistol, or sidearm.
Never mind, John Woo likes big bangs, players also like big bangs.
Something to do with action movies I think. I seem to recall having a
similar conversation with Paul about cinematic character sequences,
never emptying magazines and big bangs. We agreed it was fun, but not
believable. :)


I've found that the biggest deterent to players using weapons that are
unsuitable, is to make sure there are plenty of indications of
civil/private/military/corp security in the areas. It helps them to
realise that killing is just as illegal in the future as it is today.
Doesn't mean they can't, just they need to think about it first. I have
a nasty habit of sticking all the books and net stuff within reach of
their grubby little paws, and allowing them access to it. One player
still has a suit of powered armour, and still hasn't done anything with
it except polish the faceplate. <grin> And I was so looking forward to
making his life hell.


--
Avenger
Message no. 33
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 00:51:45 +0000
In message <yPMAoiAA+aNzEw6T@*******.demon.co.uk>, Avenger
<Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK> writes
>In article <xugVwbAM8YNzEwZq@********.demon.co.uk>, "Paul J. Adam"
><shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK> writes
>>An autocannon gives you five Ks maximum range,
>
>It does? <desperately scrabbles through books> Where?

Fields of Fire, page 87, range table, Vigilant rotary autocannon.

I _know_ you've got it, I saw it on your bookshelf ;)

>>so you can stand off
>>outside most defensive weapons. Still, SR2's weapon ranges are badly
>>broken anyway :)
>
>Ah, RL vs SF huh? Are you telling me that a 30mm autocannon on a scout
>has a five klick range? I'm beginning to feel sorry for truck convoys.
><g>

The 30mm on Warrior has a planning range of 8km, but the main limitation
is spotting and line of sight. These weapons have impressive reach.

>>Keep an eye on ShadowTK :) They aren't _that_ good compared to, say, a
>>Ballista missile launcher, but they are fun :)
>
>You can't do that! Plasma weapons on Stk? Blasphemy... Oh 'ang on, I
>forgot, you'#re one of those corporate wannabes <grin>

Well, they're not too lethal yet: still not better than conventional
weapons, and a damn sight more expensive and distinctive. But that's the
manpack version. The vehicle weapon? Nasty, but still troublesome.

>>We got the targets, let's use them :) All in the name of law and order,
>>too.
>
>And that makes it even better. Adds a nice percentage to the yearly
>crime statistics. "Look everybody, see we are making a difference." :)

Plus your armour troops and Air Farce pilots get to have fun and rack up
kills too. A win-win scenario.


--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 34
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 00:46:33 +0000
In message <Pine.GSO.3.95.970323160823.26696A-100000@*****>, Midn Daniel
O Fredrikson <m992148@****.NAVY.MIL> writes
>Recoil can be taken care of. It wouldn't be that much different from a
>normal cannon...

Yeah, but show me a flying vehicle mounting a weapon anything like the
size of a 120mm L11 gun or the US/German equivalent. The nearest,
offhand, is the AC-130 Spectre, with a low-velocity 105mm howitzer with
complex recoil arrangements.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 35
From: Midn Daniel O Fredrikson <m992148@****.NAVY.MIL>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 20:53:17 -0500
>
> >> means a foot slogger will carry a better tank killer missile, than the
> >> damn tank can pack... go figure?
> >
> >I find that so funny.
>
> Me too :)
>
> >Compare the TOW2A (one of the latest varients of
> >the most popular antitank missle ever made) to the Maverick (a
> >antitank/antiship missle used by USMC, USAF,and USN) The TOW2A has a dual
> >shaped charge warhead (for defeating reactive armor). The total warhead
> >is about 10 lbs. The Airforce version of the maverick packs a 125lb
> >shaped charge. The Marine version has a 300lb warhead.
>
> Would that be the standard maverick, ir or tv guided? Or are they all
> standard now?

Navy is infrared. Marine is laser guided. I honestly don't know of any
varients that use tv... Not to say there isn't any.. :)

>
> I do agree though, I'm puzzled as to the logic of the decision. OK, we
> don't play the game for ultra realism, but a *little* logic would seem
> to be worthwhile.
>

Logic, who needs it.. Just use the biggest gun. :)

> >Maverick, well you couldn't find much of them. There would be a blackened
> >circle with a few pieces of crumpled metal. Not many things can survive a
> >direct hit from a maverick... yut!! :)
>
> Yep, I've played Gunship 2000, I know what a maverick can do <grin>
>
> >> an easier target for an infantry kill. Also, it has the added problem
> >> of being a sitting duck for air support. With no anti air capabilities
> >> beyond the machine guns.
> >>
> >That is a major weakness, but there could be varients that have anti-air
> >capabilities. There are hummers running around with bunches of stingers
> >and .50 machine guns that act a close range anti-air. I suppose you could
> >do something similiar. <Shrug>
>
> Maybe. I guess take away the main armament, stick a twinned Vigilante
> rotary cannon, or similar into it, and it would give some AA
> capabilities, but not as efficient as a decent SAM pack.
>
> >> Fair enough, but as Paul suggested, that being the case, why use a very
> >> fast LAV when a fast aircraft or chopper is better, and doesn't cost
> >> 10m
> >>
> >The cost difference is debatable. I have always thought that the cost for
> >the fighters and helicopters are low, but that is open to debate. How
> >much is a F-15 now days. 40-50 million.
>
> Around about. If you take into account the advances in composite
> materials in 2058, ceramic components in engines (better heat, better
> performance) then the costs of aircraft can drop some, but the same
> should be reflected for ground vehicles. There are little discrepencies
> like that but I suppose the logic could be argued that it's more likely
> for a group of players to attempt to get hold of a banshee than a
> fighter aircraft, or ground attack variant. Maybe that's why the
> pricing system is so off kilter.
>

I bet if you looked at jets nowadays, 60% of the cost would be in
electronics. Probably will get even more so as the importance of
electronics increase...

> >> Powering the damn thing is the major problem, I'm not convinced that
> >> recoil is something that needs to be factored into a railgun. Though
> >> there are obvious arguments why it should be. :)
> >
> >Recoil can be taken care of. It wouldn't be that much different from a
> >normal cannon...
>
> The current vehicles seem to cope admirably with the main armament
> today, with most MBTs capable of firing main gun on the move, that
> indicates that gyroscopic control and recoil is dealt with sufficiently
> to allow for accurate control of the weapon. Transferring that to
> 23058, it would be reasonably safe to pretty much ignore any recoil from
> a railgun, unless of course some munch decided to shoulder fire one.
> <grin>
>

That sounds cool. I think I'll stick one on my suit of powered armor. :)

> >> Neither do I. Never mind, there are alterantives <g>
> >>
> >
> >Yep. If you don't understand, just complain... :)
>
> That's the one. :)
> You got it in one. Have a cornflake as a prize. :)
>
> >> And we all know that there are "hundreds" of jerks in Seattle with
> >> grenades and their assorted launchers <grin>
> >
> >Ugh...don't remind me. My group has one member whose first reaction to
> >anything is shoot a grenade...
>
> I had that problem for a little while, until my players noticed that the
> people on the streets didn't like them much, and Lone Star kept hassling
> their contacts and such like. They took a subtle hint, and quit with
> the silly stuff.
>

For us, Lone Star just started shooting grenades back. And there were
more of them!!

> >Unfortunately, people have started
> >shooting back... I hate grenades...
>
> They have their uses, but I've never understood the fascination with
> carrying a 30mm grenade launcher on a run in town. Not exactly subtle,
> and certainly not as useful as a silenced machine pistol, or sidearm.
> Never mind, John Woo likes big bangs, players also like big bangs.
> Something to do with action movies I think. I seem to recall having a
> similar conversation with Paul about cinematic character sequences,
> never emptying magazines and big bangs. We agreed it was fun, but not
> believable. :)
>
>

Yep, I always believe the best weapon is the silenced heavy pistol. I
seem to be a minority opinion though..

> I've found that the biggest deterent to players using weapons that are
> unsuitable, is to make sure there are plenty of indications of
> civil/private/military/corp security in the areas. It helps them to
> realise that killing is just as illegal in the future as it is today.
> Doesn't mean they can't, just they need to think about it first. I have
> a nasty habit of sticking all the books and net stuff within reach of
> their grubby little paws, and allowing them access to it. One player
> still has a suit of powered armour, and still hasn't done anything with
> it except polish the faceplate. <grin> And I was so looking forward to
> making his life hell.

Smart guy. Who wants to attract personal attention from an antitank
missle??
Message no. 36
From: Midn Daniel O Fredrikson <m992148@****.NAVY.MIL>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 20:59:32 -0500
> >Recoil can be taken care of. It wouldn't be that much different from a
> >normal cannon...
>
> Yeah, but show me a flying vehicle mounting a weapon anything like the
> size of a 120mm L11 gun or the US/German equivalent. The nearest,
> offhand, is the AC-130 Spectre, with a low-velocity 105mm howitzer with
> complex recoil arrangements.

There could be another advantage of thrust vectoring. You could intergrate
their direction into the firing mechanism to offset recoil. Or since
you are hoving, basically, you could just let the recoil push you a little
to the side. something to consider...
Message no. 37
From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 05:13:02 +0000
In article <O7bKFVAhAdNzEwOY@********.demon.co.uk>, "Paul J. Adam"
<shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK> writes
>In message <yPMAoiAA+aNzEw6T@*******.demon.co.uk>, Avenger
><Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK> writes

>>It does? <desperately scrabbles through books> Where?
>
>Fields of Fire, page 87, range table, Vigilant rotary autocannon.

Yep, got it now, thanks. :)
<too many books, too many pages...>

>I _know_ you've got it, I saw it on your bookshelf ;)

You've been peeking again haven't you? <g>

>>Ah, RL vs SF huh? Are you telling me that a 30mm autocannon on a scout
>>has a five klick range? I'm beginning to feel sorry for truck convoys.
>><g>
>
>The 30mm on Warrior has a planning range of 8km, but the main limitation
>is spotting and line of sight. These weapons have impressive reach.

I can see line of sight being a problem in Europe, but the wide open
plains of the states... Nah. No probs. <g>

>>You can't do that! Plasma weapons on Stk? Blasphemy... Oh 'ang on, I
>>forgot, you'#re one of those corporate wannabes <grin>
>
>Well, they're not too lethal yet:

Not too lethal? Define that please. Not too lethal to what? A dragon?
It's firing a dirty great lump of super-heated something or other, and
it's not too lethal <boggle> I have to say, I sure wouldn't want to get
in the way of one. :)

>still not better than conventional
>weapons, and a damn sight more expensive and distinctive. But that's the
>manpack version. The vehicle weapon? Nasty, but still troublesome.

Uhoh.... Finds new hidey hole for characters. ;)

>>And that makes it even better. Adds a nice percentage to the yearly
>>crime statistics. "Look everybody, see we are making a difference." :)
>
>Plus your armour troops and Air Farce pilots get to have fun and rack up
>kills too. A win-win scenario.

Don't you just love it when the good guys come out on top. And get some
decent training. :)


--
Avenger
Message no. 38
From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 05:20:27 +0000
In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.970323204558.2604A-100000@*****>, Midn Daniel
O Fredrikson <m992148@****.NAVY.MIL> writes
>>
>> Would that be the standard maverick, ir or tv guided? Or are they all
>> standard now?
>
>Navy is infrared. Marine is laser guided. I honestly don't know of any
>varients that use tv... Not to say there isn't any.. :)

Thanks, that cleared that up. :)

>> I do agree though, I'm puzzled as to the logic of the decision. OK, we
>> don't play the game for ultra realism, but a *little* logic would seem
>> to be worthwhile.
>
>Logic, who needs it.. Just use the biggest gun. :)
>

LOL... Ah, the Shadowrun technique. :)

>> like that but I suppose the logic could be argued that it's more likely
>> for a group of players to attempt to get hold of a banshee than a
>> fighter aircraft, or ground attack variant. Maybe that's why the
>> pricing system is so off kilter.
>
>I bet if you looked at jets nowadays, 60% of the cost would be in
>electronics. Probably will get even more so as the importance of
>electronics increase...

Although with the increase in electronice usage, the technology improves
and becomes cheaper, for a current day example, look at how the prices
of PCs has dropped over the last two years. TV's, video recorders,
satellite systems etc. The technology gets better, the price gets
lower. I suppose the cost of a 2058 military vehicle should equate in
modern terms and be _as_ pricey but not prohibitively so.

>> to allow for accurate control of the weapon. Transferring that to
>> 23058, it would be reasonably safe to pretty much ignore any recoil from
>> a railgun, unless of course some munch decided to shoulder fire one.
>> <grin>
>
>That sounds cool. I think I'll stick one on my suit of powered armor. :)

Don't you _dare_ say that out loud, a couple of my players subscribe to
this list, they don't need any more ideas... <g>

>> I had that problem for a little while, until my players noticed that the
>> people on the streets didn't like them much, and Lone Star kept hassling
>> their contacts and such like. They took a subtle hint, and quit with
>> the silly stuff.
>
>For us, Lone Star just started shooting grenades back. And there were
>more of them!!

Ouch. That's gotta hurt.

>> Something to do with action movies I think. I seem to recall having a
>> similar conversation with Paul about cinematic character sequences,
>> never emptying magazines and big bangs. We agreed it was fun, but not
>> believable. :)
>
>Yep, I always believe the best weapon is the silenced heavy pistol. I
>seem to be a minority opinion though..

I think I'll join that minority. Nice and concealable, efficient, good
range and good take down. Best all round weapon for a runner.

>> still has a suit of powered armour, and still hasn't done anything with
>> it except polish the faceplate. <grin> And I was so looking forward to
>> making his life hell.
>
>Smart guy. Who wants to attract personal attention from an antitank
>missle??

Ah, but you have to understand, he has it installed in an add on
compartment on his RV, which is used for tranportation in and around
Seattle. I just haven't had the heart to have Lone Star stop him and
ask why the RV is so low on it's axles. <grin>


--
Avenger
Message no. 39
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 11:18:05 +0100
Midn Daniel O Fredrikson said on 20:53/23 Mar 97...

> > Would that be the standard maverick, ir or tv guided? Or are they all
> > standard now?
>
> Navy is infrared. Marine is laser guided. I honestly don't know of any
> varients that use tv... Not to say there isn't any.. :)

AGM-65A and B are TV-guided, C and E use laser, D, F, and G are IR-guided
(from "World Encyclopedia Of Modern Air Weapons", Christopher Chant,
1988). (AGM-65C was cancelled before it reached full production, though.)

Oh BTW, could you trim your posts?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
You can type this shit, but you can't say it.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 40
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 11:18:04 +0100
Midn Daniel O Fredrikson said on 17:01/23 Mar 97...

> Funny story...in the gulf war, it was easy to tell the difference between
> T-72 that got hit with a TOW or Hellfire to one that got hit with a
> Maverick. The ones hit with a TOW or Hellfire looked fine from the
> outside, except the had a 2 inch hole somewhere in the side. The insides
> to the tanks would be charred black.

I've seen plenty of pictures of T-72s hit by TOW missiles that had their
turret blown off the tank completely.

> The tanks that got hit by a Maverick, well you couldn't find much of
> them. There would be a blackened circle with a few pieces of crumpled
> metal. Not many things can survive a direct hit from a maverick...
> yut!! :)

It's really a moot point, isn't it? A TOW will kill your T-72 dead, and so
will a Maverick. If you fire them against bunkers it might well be a
different story, but as tank killers they have much the same
overall effect.
This is sort of like the ".45 ACP is better than 9 mm Para" debate, if you
ask me.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
You can type this shit, but you can't say it.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 41
From: Midn Daniel O Fredrikson <m992148@****.NAVY.MIL>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 06:55:51 -0500
>
> > Funny story...in the gulf war, it was easy to tell the difference between
> > T-72 that got hit with a TOW or Hellfire to one that got hit with a
> > Maverick. The ones hit with a TOW or Hellfire looked fine from the
> > outside, except the had a 2 inch hole somewhere in the side. The insides
> > to the tanks would be charred black.
>
> I've seen plenty of pictures of T-72s hit by TOW missiles that had their
> turret blown off the tank completely.
>

Yes, but that is not usually from the missle head, that is often from
secondary explosions of ammo.

> > The tanks that got hit by a Maverick, well you couldn't find much of
> > them. There would be a blackened circle with a few pieces of crumpled
> > metal. Not many things can survive a direct hit from a maverick...
> > yut!! :)
>
> It's really a moot point, isn't it? A TOW will kill your T-72 dead, and so
> will a Maverick. If you fire them against bunkers it might well be a
> different story, but as tank killers they have much the same
> overall effect.
> This is sort of like the ".45 ACP is better than 9 mm Para" debate, if you
> ask me.

Maybe or maybe not. It is debatable if a TOW would be able to destroy the
Abrams tank. There is not debate with a maverick.
Message no. 42
From: Droopy <droopy@*******.NB.NET>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 09:12:59 +0000
> From: Midn Daniel O Fredrikson <m992148@****.NAVY.MIL>
> Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member

> Maybe or maybe not. It is debatable if a TOW would be able to destroy the
> Abrams tank. There is not debate with a maverick.

There's no debating to it, a TOW gunner would have to be extremely
lucky to pop an M1-A2 Abrams. The Maverick was an excellent weapon
until they started mounting them on anything that flies. Granted,
they were somewhat superflorous when coupled with the 30mm, but
F-16's were never meant to carry them.


--Droopy
droopy@**.net
Message no. 43
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 17:54:08 +0000
In message <Pine.GSO.3.95.970323205735.2604B-100000@*****>, Midn Daniel
O Fredrikson <m992148@****.NAVY.MIL> writes
>> >Recoil can be taken care of. It wouldn't be that much different from a
>> >normal cannon...
>>
>> Yeah, but show me a flying vehicle mounting a weapon anything like the
>> size of a 120mm L11 gun or the US/German equivalent. The nearest,
>> offhand, is the AC-130 Spectre, with a low-velocity 105mm howitzer with
>> complex recoil arrangements.
>
>There could be another advantage of thrust vectoring. You could intergrate
>their direction into the firing mechanism to offset recoil. Or since
>you are hoving, basically, you could just let the recoil push you a little
>to the side. something to consider...

The problem is that the recoil isn't pushing you sideways, it's flipping
you over, because the gun is mounted in a top turret: and as you tilt,
your thrusters are pointing out at an angle that, combined with the
ground effect and intake suction, is likely to flip you further over.

The Harrier is vulnerable to this: carelessly handled it can flip
inverted and smash itself into the ground.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 44
From: Midn Daniel O Fredrikson <m992148@****.NAVY.MIL>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 15:30:16 -0500
> >There could be another advantage of thrust vectoring. You could intergrate
> >their direction into the firing mechanism to offset recoil. Or since
> >you are hoving, basically, you could just let the recoil push you a little
> >to the side. something to consider...
>
> The problem is that the recoil isn't pushing you sideways, it's flipping
> you over, because the gun is mounted in a top turret: and as you tilt,
> your thrusters are pointing out at an angle that, combined with the
> ground effect and intake suction, is likely to flip you further over.
>
> The Harrier is vulnerable to this: carelessly handled it can flip
> inverted and smash itself into the ground.


Duh...don't I feel stupid now... :)
Message no. 45
From: "Paul J. Adam" <paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 17:56:42 +0000
In message <GuPdQmAOLbNzEwOn@*******.demon.co.uk>, Avenger
<Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK> writes
>Would that be the standard maverick, ir or tv guided? Or are they all
>standard now?

AGM-65A and B are TV guided (B has more magnification on the seeker). D
is IR guided. F is semi-active laser homing, for the Marines, and has a
larger blast warhead replacing the hollow charge. The G model has the
larger warhead and an IR seeker for antiship use.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 46
From: Sascha Pabst <Sascha.Pabst@**********.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 03:19:51 +0000
On 24 Mar 97 at 0:51, Paul J. Adam wrote:
[snip]
> >>An autocannon gives you five Ks maximum range,
> >
> >It does? <desperately scrabbles through books> Where?
>
> Fields of Fire, page 87, range table, Vigilant rotary autocannon.
>
> I _know_ you've got it, I saw it on your bookshelf ;)
Drek, you beat me to it :-(

Sascha
--
+---___---------+------------------------------------+------------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |Things that try to look |
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@ | like things often do |
| \___ __/ | Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.de | look more like things |
|==== \_/ ======|*Wearing hats is just a way of life*| than things. Well known|
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | fact. - E.Weatherwax |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 47
From: Sascha Pabst <Sascha.Pabst@**********.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 03:19:52 +0000
On 24 Mar 97 at 5:13, Avenger wrote:
[snip]
> >>Ah, RL vs SF huh? Are you telling me that a 30mm autocannon on a scout
> >>has a five klick range? I'm beginning to feel sorry for truck convoys.
> >><g>
Damn, I thought we were just through that topic?

> >The 30mm on Warrior has a planning range of 8km, but the main limitation
> >is spotting and line of sight. These weapons have impressive reach.
>
> I can see line of sight being a problem in Europe, but the wide open
> plains of the states... Nah. No probs. <g>
I can't see any problems _getting_ a clear LOS with an autocannon...
*grin*

Sascha
--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |'The rich control |
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| The Government, |
| \___ __/ | | The Media, |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | And the Law!' |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | - Queensryche |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 48
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 09:28:28 +0100
Midn Daniel O Fredrikson said on 6:55/24 Mar 97...

> Yes, but that is not usually from the missle head, that is often from
> secondary explosions of ammo.

I'll grant you that. However, I don't doubt that the tank would still be
out of action from a TOW even if the ammo hadn't cooked off.

> Maybe or maybe not. It is debatable if a TOW would be able to destroy the
> Abrams tank. There is not debate with a maverick.

Are you only thinking frontal armor here, or sides/rear/roof as well?

Anyway, I still think this particular discussion is a bit superfluous...
To me, a kill is a kill, whether the tank (no matter if it's Little Willie
or an M1A2) got blasted to a million pieces by a Maverick, or disabled by
a much less destructive TOW shot -- as long as it's out of action, it
won't shoot back, and IMHO that's what counts most.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
All new and improved! Or maybe not...
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 49
From: Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 08:44:27 GMT
Midn Daniel O Fredrikson writes
>
> Maybe or maybe not. It is debatable if a TOW would be able to destroy the
> Abrams tank. There is not debate with a maverick.
>
That would depend on the version of TOW used and the angle it hit
from. My best info come from the 'Challenger' wargames rules, now
years old but. From which a TOW2 (usual variety) would have problems
with the M1's front armour (but stands a chance) and is terminal from
any other angle. Upgrades above TOW2 would kill.
Note Hellfire is THE missile range over 5 klicks, penetration, kills
what it hit (up to and including the Challengers front armour!) with
fire from full defile (and in recent years they have mounted more
fun things than just paierd laser designators in above rotor sights)
Yes i have seen in wargame rules what this does, you can see (like
try spotting it) a little ball .5m across above the trees, coming
the other way are a couple of hellfires/round. And the lastest apahce
(longbow) sounds like it doesn't need the help of the spotting chopper
to do this.

Mark
Message no. 50
From: David Hinkley <dhinkley@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 14:14:06 +0000
> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 11:18:04 +0100
> From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>

[SNIP]
> This is sort of like the ".45 ACP is better than 9 mm Para" debate, if you
> ask me.

There is a debate? The .45 ACP is clearly the superior
cartridge!!!!. :-)



David Hinkley
dhinkley@***.org

====================================================
Those who are too intelligent to engage in politics
are punished by being governed by those who are not
--Plato
Message no. 51
From: David Hinkley <dhinkley@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 14:14:10 +0000
> Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 20:53:17 -0500
> From: Midn Daniel O Fredrikson <m992148@****.NAVY.MIL> and
others.

[A VERY LARGE SNIP]

> >
> > They have their uses, but I've never understood the fascination with
> > carrying a 30mm grenade launcher on a run in town. Not exactly subtle,
> > and certainly not as useful as a silenced machine pistol, or
sidearm. [SNIP]

It depends on what type of grenade is up the snout. There is much to
be said for a rubber bullet, or a flechette and DP is just the
answer for a Patrol 1. One of my characters carries a Springfield
M279 (double-barrled side-by side 30mm) with a rubber bullet in one
and a flechette in the other. Less noise then a shotgun, more
intimidating and a choice between lethal and non-lethal response. As
to tossing HE all over the place, that just a good way to meet a alot
of Lonestar's finest.

> Yep, I always believe the best weapon is the silenced heavy pistol. I
> seem to be a minority opinion though..
>
There is definately much to be said for that combination. I do not
think however that there is any single "best-weapon". A good deal
depends on where and under what conditions. A rifle is hard to hide
but it is much better then a snub-nose revolver against a target at
100 meters.



David Hinkley
dhinkley@***.org
******************************************************
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve niether liberty or
safety.
Ben Franklin
Message no. 52
From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 00:00:41 +0000
In article <199703252223.OAA16069@*****.efn.org>, David Hinkley
<dhinkley@***.ORG> writes
>> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 11:18:04 +0100
>> From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
>
>[SNIP]
>> This is sort of like the ".45 ACP is better than 9 mm Para" debate, if
you
>> ask me.
>
>There is a debate? The .45 ACP is clearly the superior
> cartridge!!!!. :-)

As verified by the Los Angeles PD

They are considering dumping all their 9mm weapons and upgrading to .45
The complaint is that the 9mm doesn't stop the bad guys, the 45 stops
them, dramatically. If I recall correctly, they're considering 45 hollow
point as standard ammo.


--
__ \ | \ __
| | _` | __| | / _ \ \ / _ \ __ \ _` | _ \ __|
| | ( | | < ___ \ \ / __/ | | ( | __/ |
____/ \__,_|_| _|\_\ _/ _\ \_/ \___|_| _|\__, |\___|_|
A Dark Shadow in a Dark World |___/
Message no. 53
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 11:40:24 +0100
Avenger said on 0:00/26 Mar 97...

> They are considering dumping all their 9mm weapons and upgrading to .45
> The complaint is that the 9mm doesn't stop the bad guys, the 45 stops
> them, dramatically. If I recall correctly, they're considering 45 hollow
> point as standard ammo.

Please stop this (just this once, okay Pete? :) that was exactly the kind
of debate I meant... If we're not careful someone will now go "But 9 mm is
better because of reason X..." and others will reply "No, .45 is better
for reason Y..." and it gets nowhere because all anyone will agree on
is that both will wound or kill if fired into a human body.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I'd tune into some friendly voices, talking 'bout stupid things.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 54
From: "Fisher, Victor" <Victor-Fisher@******.COM>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 08:26:26 -0500
Gurth said:
>Avenger said on 0:00/26 Mar 97...
>
>> They are considering dumping all their 9mm weapons and upgrading to .45
>> The complaint is that the 9mm doesn't stop the bad guys, the 45 stops
>> them, dramatically. If I recall correctly, they're considering 45 hollow
>> point as standard ammo.
>
>Please stop this (just this once, okay Pete? :) that was exactly the kind
>of debate I meant... If we're not careful someone will now go "But 9 mm is
>better because of reason X..." and others will reply "No, .45 is better
>for reason Y..." and it gets nowhere because all anyone will agree on
>is that both will wound or kill if fired into a human body.


The threads started now. Trying to cut it off would be like trying
to put the sheep back in the test tube :-]. There's plenty of stats on
the web compairing the relative effectiveness of 9mm vs. .45 cal. Not
including some of our fellow runners personal experiences.
Are you compairing them for their own sake, or are you doing it for
the games' weapon's system? Just curious.
Oh, in my opinion, the LAST thing L.A. cops need are bigger guns.
Give 'em free passes to Dunkin Donuts instead < runs to closet, grabs
video camera, waves:->

"This is the kind of conversation that can only end in a gun shot!"
Dr. Stephen Franklin, Babylon 5
Message no. 55
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 20:44:09 +0100
Fisher, Victor said on 8:26/26 Mar 97...

> The threads started now. Trying to cut it off would be like trying
> to put the sheep back in the test tube :-]. There's plenty of stats on
> the web compairing the relative effectiveness of 9mm vs. .45 cal. Not
> including some of our fellow runners personal experiences.
> Are you compairing them for their own sake, or are you doing it for
> the games' weapon's system? Just curious.

I was using it as an example for the TOW vs. Maverick thing, not for
anything else. Last week I saw the 9 mm vs. .45 debate on the Millennium's
End list, and that's what the AT missile thread immediately reminded me
of... I should have not brought it up at all :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
and there are those, there are those who think
that drastic actions will make them unique
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 56
From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: LAV's was re: New member
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 20:59:26 +0000
In article <199703261039.LAA02634@**********.xs4all.nl>, Gurth
<gurth@******.NL> writes
>Avenger said on 0:00/26 Mar 97...
>
>> They are considering dumping all their 9mm weapons and upgrading to .45
>> The complaint is that the 9mm doesn't stop the bad guys, the 45 stops
>> them, dramatically. If I recall correctly, they're considering 45 hollow
>> point as standard ammo.
>
>Please stop this (just this once, okay Pete? :)

No... won't ;-P

>that was exactly the kind
>of debate I meant... If we're not careful someone will now go "But 9 mm is
>better because of reason X..." and others will reply "No, .45 is better
>for reason Y..." and it gets nowhere because all anyone will agree on
>is that both will wound or kill if fired into a human body.

I agree with you totally Gurth. However, it's not me that is stating
the preference of the weapon class and calibre, but the US security
forces. They have found that although the 9mm kills just as well as any
other bullet, the kind of opposition they are meeting on the city
streets now (and you have to take drugs into account here) that the 9mm
just isn't man enough for the job. That's an official statement from
the LA and New York PD, so not my opinion. :)

I'm afraid I can't see an argument here at all. If anyone wants to
argue the point, they should contact the relevant police departments in
the above mentioned cities. :)

--
__ \ | \ __
| | _` | __| | / _ \ \ / _ \ __ \ _` | _ \ __|
| | ( | | < ___ \ \ / __/ | | ( | __/ |
____/ \__,_|_| _|\_\ _/ _\ \_/ \___|_| _|\__, |\___|_|
A Dark Shadow in a Dark World |___/

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about LAV's was re: New member, 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.