Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 04:14:30 -0500
Ok, here they are, Tell me what I need to fix

Note: I used a military Mark up of x5
Btw, something occured to me ... the milspec markup may be like a street
index and only applies for go through the wrong channels or for going
through the proper channels with the paper work and permits and what not
and such ... In that case, it might not apply when determining the cost
for a government or corporation to build security and milspec vehicles if
they are equiped to build the neccisarry parts ... (ie, Ares,
Aztechnology, and CAS would have no problems but MCT would) ... do you
agree? (If so, then the cost of this Stonewall would be 18,406,000 ...
BIG difference, neh?)

CAS "Stonewall" LABT (Low Altitude Battle Tank)
Handling Speed Accel Body Armor Sig
2 150/650 40 6 24 3
Autonav Pilot Sensor Cargo Load
4 - 8 1.5 3000

Seating: 1 ejection + 3 bucket Setup/Breakdown: NA
Entry Points: 1h + 1d +1r Landing/Takeoff: VSTOL
Fuel: Jet (7,500 liters) Economy: .3 km/liter
Point Value: 61,352.02 Cost: 92,032,500
Template: Thunderbird Reference: RBB
Other Features:
Datajack Port x4
Drive-By-Wire 3
ECM 8, ECCM 8
ED 5, ECD 5
Medium AA remote turret (mounting 120 mm Railgun [stats = Relampago] with
room for 50 rounds + a Victory Assault Cannon with 12 points of recoil
compensation and room for 500 rounds both with smartlink II integration)
Life Support 30 Man hours
RAM 3
Rigger Adaptation x 4
Smart Armor System
Smart Materials
Structural Agility 3

Ok ... The Econ gives it an opperating range of about 2,250 km or 1,398
miles

The 3 extra seats were buckets seats because I couldn't find the stats
for ejection seats in R2 ...

a crew of 4 should be able to manage ... Ussual config would probably be
1 Pilot + 1 Gunner + 1 EW Rigger + 1 Commander/(Mage or Rigger)

All the members of the crew would capable of taking over each other's
roles in case anyone was hurt ... (ie, in order to be eligable to man the
Stonewall, first, you have to be in the CAS military, and second, you
have to be a capable Pilot, Gunner, and EW ... though you'll most likely
be assigned whatever role you're best at ...) Note: if the CAS can't have
a Magically Active Commander (possibly from Texas A&M&M) , he/she'll be
equiped with Rigger control gear ...

Btw, How much would it cost to install that Fiber optic sighting system
form corp security in to this thing? A friend is borrowing mine so I
can't say/guess ... :/

The Life Support, and SAS were originally in the design but I forgot to
include them in my original Post :/

The 1.5 CF is a storage are in the cabin.

I think this is the version I'd go with ... Btw Gurth, I seem to be able
create a vehicle with the T-Bird chassis that is more effective, IMO,
than I can with a tracked MBT chassis ... aside from the MBT allowing for
bigger guns ... The T-Bird just has so much more available CF ... and I
used almost ALL of it :)

heh, also, the only thing stopping me from adding more armor was that 24
was pretty damn high already ...

And Mike, I thought about what you said about and underbelly mount but I
still think this config is more appropriate ... feel free to modify it
for you PBeM if you wish :) I would reccomend a small turret with an
autocannon, railgun, or vehicle laser and then add some external AVM
systems ... you could also go for a small turret on top and an underbelly
mini turret but you couldn't mount anything heavier than a HMG, a
vindicator minigun, or an AVM/AVR launcher ... better, IMO, to go for the
external AVM launchers ...

Btw, Gurth ... I'm not sure if I'll be to come up with any decent decker
comments ... I won't have time ... do you mind doing this yourself? or
Shanghaiing--err--persuading another listmember to do it? ;)

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
o/` Trideo killed the Video Star ... o/`

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 2
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 14:00:44 +0100
Alfredo B Alves said on 4:14/21 Jul 98,...

> The 3 extra seats were buckets seats because I couldn't find the stats
> for ejection seats in R2 ...

They're hidden quite well, but cost 35 building points and 100 kg
of Load. To change the existing bucket seats in your MBT,
therefore, add 150 kg to Load (making it 3,150) and 105 to
design points.

> All the members of the crew would capable of taking over each other's
> roles in case anyone was hurt ... (ie, in order to be eligable to man the
> Stonewall, first, you have to be in the CAS military, and second, you
> have to be a capable Pilot, Gunner, and EW ... though you'll most likely
> be assigned whatever role you're best at ...)

AFAIK in the modern western military it's usually that you start
out as a loader (with basic training to function as driver and
guner too), then progress to driver, then gunner, and finally to
commander.

> Btw, Gurth ... I'm not sure if I'll be to come up with any decent decker
> comments ... I won't have time ... do you mind doing this yourself? or
> Shanghaiing--err--persuading another listmember to do it? ;)

I have a few ideas there, but I'll email you the stats I came up
with for my version(s).

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Sarcasm -- it's a great way to deal.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 3
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 09:33:05 -0500
On Tue, 21 Jul 1998 14:00:44 +0100 Gurth <gurth@******.NL> writes:
>Alfredo B Alves said on 4:14/21 Jul 98,...
>> The 3 extra seats were buckets seats because I couldn't find the stats
>> for ejection seats in R2 ...

>They're hidden quite well, but cost 35 building points and 100 kg
>of Load. To change the existing bucket seats in your MBT,
>therefore, add 150 kg to Load (making it 3,150) and 105 to
>design points.

Where'd you find them? I was driving myself batty looking for these ...

>> All the members of the crew would capable of taking over each other's
>> roles in case anyone was hurt ... (ie, in order to be eligable to man
the
>> Stonewall, first, you have to be in the CAS military, and second, you
>> have to be a capable Pilot, Gunner, and EW ... though you'll most
likely
>> be assigned whatever role you're best at ...)

>AFAIK in the modern western military it's usually that you start
>out as a loader (with basic training to function as driver and
>guner too), then progress to driver, then gunner, and finally to
>commander.

Well, I should have been clearer in my intentions ... Those were supposed
to be the restrictions above those for a normal tank crew ... but after
what you said, I should change it to in order to serve on the Stonewall,
you need to have first served on a regular MBT in some capacity and
second must qualified to man the vehicle alone (ie, you must be a capable
pilot, gunner, EW tech, and whatever else you need to do) ... does that
sound better?

>> Btw, Gurth ... I'm not sure if I'll be to come up with any decent
decker
>> comments ... I won't have time ... do you mind doing this yourself? or
>> Shanghaiing--err--persuading another listmember to do it? ;)

>I have a few ideas there, but I'll email you the stats I came up
>with for my version(s).
>
>--
>Gurth@******.nl -
<SNIP Sig>

Groovy :)

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
o/` Trideo killed the Video Star ... o/`

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 4
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 12:43:06 EDT
In a message dated 7/21/1998 4:19:21 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.COM writes:

> Ok, here they are, Tell me what I need to fix

Okay, if anything does of course :P

> Note: I used a military Mark up of x5
> Btw, something occured to me ... the milspec markup may be like a street
> index and only applies for go through the wrong channels or for going
> through the proper channels with the paper work and permits and what not
> and such ... In that case, it might not apply when determining the cost
> for a government or corporation to build security and milspec vehicles if
> they are equiped to build the neccisarry parts ... (ie, Ares,
> Aztechnology, and CAS would have no problems but MCT would) ... do you
> agree? (If so, then the cost of this Stonewall would be 18,406,000 ...
> BIG difference, neh?)

I am NOT certain that this would be the *end* cost, but your commentary about
the Military Mark-UP actually makes sense to me at least. We've considered
this possibility here in the home games.

> CAS "Stonewall" LABT (Low Altitude Battle Tank)

I like this newer name... (thumbs up) :)

> Handling Speed Accel Body Armor Sig
> 2 150/650 40 6 24 3

This seems -fair-, given what is below

> Autonav Pilot Sensor Cargo Load
> 4 - 8 1.5 3000

Again, very nice.

> Seating: 1 ejection + 3 bucket Setup/Breakdown: NA
> Entry Points: 1h + 1d +1r Landing/Takeoff: VSTOL
> Fuel: Jet (7,500 liters) Economy: .3 km/liter
> Point Value: 61,352.02 Cost: 92,032,500

Ah, now this cost is different from above, but I also understand why...

> Template: Thunderbird Reference: RBB
> Other Features:
> Datajack Port x4
> Drive-By-Wire 3
> ECM 8, ECCM 8
> ED 5, ECD 5
> Medium AA remote turret (mounting 120 mm Railgun [stats = Relampago] with
> room for 50 rounds + a Victory Assault Cannon with 12 points of recoil
> compensation and room for 500 rounds both with smartlink II integration)

Nice boom boom

> Life Support 30 Man hours
> RAM 3
> Rigger Adaptation x 4
> Smart Armor System
> Smart Materials
> Structural Agility 3
>
> Ok ... The Econ gives it an opperating range of about 2,250 km or 1,398
> miles

WOW! Mommy, I want one..

> The 3 extra seats were buckets seats because I couldn't find the stats
> for ejection seats in R2 ...

More or less the same as the Reinforced Bucket sets

> a crew of 4 should be able to manage ... Ussual config would probably be
> 1 Pilot + 1 Gunner + 1 EW Rigger + 1 Commander/(Mage or Rigger)

I personally would make the last two flipped a bit. I would have the pilot,
gunner, electronics operator (communications/sensors, etc...) and a Magician,
this latter preferably with a Mindlink spell on an anchoring of some form.

> All the members of the crew would capable of taking over each other's
> roles in case anyone was hurt ... (ie, in order to be eligable to man the
> Stonewall, first, you have to be in the CAS military, and second, you
> have to be a capable Pilot, Gunner, and EW ... though you'll most likely
> be assigned whatever role you're best at ...) Note: if the CAS can't have
> a Magically Active Commander (possibly from Texas A&M&M) , he/she'll be
> equiped with Rigger control gear ...

All of which makes sense of course.

> Btw, How much would it cost to install that Fiber optic sighting system
> form corp security in to this thing? A friend is borrowing mine so I
> can't say/guess ... :/

Ooo, I don't recall, let me look at something...(sounds of some recently
printer papers flipping) ... I have a suggested ruling for a Closed Circuit
Simsense System Integration that would run "Tech Level" x 500 Design Points.
It actually uses NO CF or reduction in Load if applied as a Design Option.
The visual link stuff would probably, IMO, use at least 2 CF, but could be
part of this system concept.

> The Life Support, and SAS were originally in the design but I forgot to
> include them in my original Post :/

Chuckles

> The 1.5 CF is a storage are in the cabin.

makes some sense.

> I think this is the version I'd go with ... Btw Gurth, I seem to be able
> create a vehicle with the T-Bird chassis that is more effective, IMO,
> than I can with a tracked MBT chassis ... aside from the MBT allowing for
> bigger guns ... The T-Bird just has so much more available CF ... and I
> used almost ALL of it :)

SHWEEEET! (to quote Carmen)

> heh, also, the only thing stopping me from adding more armor was that 24
> was pretty damn high already ...

no comment... (remembers something about -more- than that)

> And Mike, I thought about what you said about and underbelly mount but I
> still think this config is more appropriate ... feel free to modify it
> for you PBeM if you wish :) I would reccomend a small turret with an
> autocannon, railgun, or vehicle laser and then add some external AVM
> systems ... you could also go for a small turret on top and an underbelly
> mini turret but you couldn't mount anything heavier than a HMG, a
> vindicator minigun, or an AVM/AVR launcher ... better, IMO, to go for the
> external AVM launchers ...

Oh yeah, don't try and convince the rigger in our home games of this.
Especially after last weekend with those damn external fuel mounts...

> Btw, Gurth ... I'm not sure if I'll be to come up with any decent decker
> comments ... I won't have time ... do you mind doing this yourself? or
> Shanghaiing--err--persuading another listmember to do it? ;)

>>>>>[Not a bad piece of work here, a bit radical for the in-the-field, and
I
could imagine the FBW-assist makes it far easier to turn this 'Brick' around.
Wouldn't want to be at the other end of the gun of course.]<<<<<
-Binder-in-the-Dark <Guess/Keep Guessing>


Have a good one, not bad...not bad at all...

-K
Message no. 5
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 13:05:54 -0400
At 04:14 AM 7/21/98 -0500, you wrote:

>CAS "Stonewall" LABT (Low Altitude Battle Tank)

>Cost: 92,032,500

EGADS!! No wonder the CAS never built one, it would trash their entire
budget/economy!

Okay, so that's a bit of an exaggeration. But 92 million nuyen is
extremely expensive, enough so that I doubt that most folks would find it
cost effective, especially since upkeep and maintainence would have to be
extremely expensive also.

A cool design, but that's just way too expensive for my blood.

Erik J.


http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/dungeon/480/index.html
The Reality Check for a Fictional World
Message no. 6
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 13:23:50 -0500
On Tue, 21 Jul 1998 12:43:06 EDT K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
writes:
>In a message dated 7/21/1998 4:19:21 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
>dghost@****.COM writes:
>> Ok, here they are, Tell me what I need to fix

>Okay, if anything does of course :P

Now, that would be a first .... ;)

>> Note: I used a military Mark up of x5
>> Btw, something occured to me ... the milspec markup may be like a
street
>> index and only applies for go through the wrong channels or for going
>> through the proper channels with the paper work and permits and what
not
>> and such ... In that case, it might not apply when determining the
cost
>> for a government or corporation to build security and milspec
vehicles if
>> they are equiped to build the neccisarry parts ... (ie, Ares,
>> Aztechnology, and CAS would have no problems but MCT would) ... do
you
>> agree? (If so, then the cost of this Stonewall would be 18,406,000
...
>> BIG difference, neh?)

>I am NOT certain that this would be the *end* cost, but your commentary
about
>the Military Mark-UP actually makes sense to me at least. We've
considered
>this possibility here in the home games.

I'm not sure what you're saying ... perhaps if you shared what you've
considered in the home games? If you're worried about it being too
cheap, why not say that corps/governments who normally produce milspec
gear can suply themselves with such gear using the Security Mark-up
multiplier (or perhaps the just halve the multiplier? so x1.0 to x1.5 for
Security grade vehicles and x1.5 to x2.5 for milspec?)

>> CAS "Stonewall" LABT (Low Altitude Battle Tank)

>I like this newer name... (thumbs up) :)

Thanks :)

<SNIP>
>> Point Value: 61,352.02 Cost: 92,032,500

>Ah, now this cost is different from above, but I also understand why...

Yeah, this is the cost as per Rigger 2 ... It cost so much because of the
armored external sound system that constantly plays "Thunderstruck"
(Joke: reference to mounting the "relampago" :)

BTW, it should be noted that I did nothing freaky when designing this ...
this is straight by the books (except for mounting the Relampago and the
CF costs for ammo ... I fudged those since I couldn't find anything on it
in Rigger 2) ... The chassis is just a straight T-Bird nothing funky ...

<SNIP>
>> ECM 8, ECCM 8
>> ED 5, ECD 5
>> Medium AA remote turret (mounting 120 mm Railgun [stats = Relampago]
with
>> room for 50 rounds + a Victory Assault Cannon with 12 points of
recoil
>> compensation and room for 500 rounds both with smartlink II
integration)

>Nice boom boom

hmmmm ... perhaps I should have given both guns Gyroscopic stabalization?
(6 for the railgun, 12 for the autocannon) That way, you'd have no
problem shooting while moving/maneuvering ... That would pretty much
garauntee lots of successes unless the gunner sucks ...

Querry: Is a railgun considered a Anti-vehicle and/or armor piercing?

Also the EW gear should be good enough to foul up the enemy severely and
keep the enemy from fouling them up ... unless the enemy brings out the
heavy EW stuff (doesn't the US Airforce have planes dedicated to EW,
sensors, and communications?)

<SNIP>
>> Ok ... The Econ gives it an opperating range of about 2,250 km or
1,398
>> miles

>WOW! Mommy, I want one..

Is that an appropriate range? I have no idea ... I figured this needed
good range since it can't really be airdropped (I think) or transported
in the way MBTs can but I don't know ... I guess MBTs are bigger than
LAVs so I guess that presumption is false ...

Scary thought: Carrier based Stonewalls ...

<SNIP>
>> a crew of 4 should be able to manage ... Ussual config would probably
be
>> 1 Pilot + 1 Gunner + 1 EW Rigger + 1 Commander/(Mage or Rigger)

>I personally would make the last two flipped a bit. I would have the
pilot,
>gunner, electronics operator (communications/sensors, etc...) and a
Magician,
>this latter preferably with a Mindlink spell on an anchoring of some
form.

I don't see what the difference is ... oh wait are you saying that the
Tank commander handle the EW/Sensors then Have a mage? Ok ... I guess
that makes sense :)

<SNIP>
>> Btw, How much would it cost to install that Fiber optic sighting
system
>> form corp security in to this thing? A friend is borrowing mine so I
>> can't say/guess ... :/

>Ooo, I don't recall, let me look at something...(sounds of some recently
>printer papers flipping) ... I have a suggested ruling for a Closed
Circuit
>Simsense System Integration that would run "Tech Level" x 500 Design
Points.
>It actually uses NO CF or reduction in Load if applied as a Design
Option.
>The visual link stuff would probably, IMO, use at least 2 CF, but could
be
>part of this system concept.

Eeep! 2 CF? that's more than can be spared unless you use that bit on pg
118 of R2 about scraping up extra space but, IMO, that's a BAD idea for a
combat vehicle ... What's taking up all that space? I would think ti
would just need some Fiberoptic lines that lead to the mage's goggles ...

<SNIP>
>> And Mike, I thought about what you said about and underbelly mount
but I
>> still think this config is more appropriate ... feel free to modify
it
>> for you PBeM if you wish :) I would reccomend a small turret with an
>> autocannon, railgun, or vehicle laser and then add some external AVM
>> systems ... you could also go for a small turret on top and an
underbelly
>> mini turret but you couldn't mount anything heavier than a HMG, a
>> vindicator minigun, or an AVM/AVR launcher ... better, IMO, to go for
the
>> external AVM launchers ...

>Oh yeah, don't try and convince the rigger in our home games of this.
>Especially after last weekend with those damn external fuel mounts...

Oh, I thought of that but the AVMs aren't armed until they're ready to
fire so you probably won't get worse than losing some missles (plus the
damage of the attack that destroyed the missiles ... unless the attack
only jammed them ... in which case you might have problems ... :)

>> Btw, Gurth ... I'm not sure if I'll be to come up with any decent
decker
>> comments ... I won't have time ... do you mind doing this yourself?
or
>> Shanghaiing--err--persuading another listmember to do it? ;)

>>>>>>[Not a bad piece of work here, a bit radical for the in-the-field,
and I
>could imagine the FBW-assist makes it far easier to turn this 'Brick'
around.
>Wouldn't want to be at the other end of the gun of course.]<<<<<
> -Binder-in-the-Dark <Guess/Keep Guessing>

>>>>>[The CAS originally developed this in tangent with a tracked MBT.
They were very similar in appearance in order to confuse enemy
intelligence reports into believing that the CAS had developed a true LAV
MBT. This also the reason it was equiped with such intense electronic
warfare gear.
However, when the CAS saw how effective this thing was in action,
they stepped up production. Boy, am I glad I'm not in Aztlan ...]<<<<<
-XCM <13:28:55/7-21-59>

*reads last line and grins at K* ;)

>Have a good one, not bad...not bad at all...
>
>-K

Thanks :)

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
o/` Trideo killed the Video Star ... o/`

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 7
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 20:45:54 +0100
Alfredo B Alves said on 9:33/21 Jul 98,...

> >They're hidden quite well, but cost 35 building points and 100 kg
> >of Load. To change the existing bucket seats in your MBT,
> >therefore, add 150 kg to Load (making it 3,150) and 105 to
> >design points.
>
> Where'd you find them? I was driving myself batty looking for these ...

On page 142 of R2 is a block with stats that apply to ejection
seats. It's actually in the middle of the description of seats in
general, and is another example of the poor edition that was done
on Rigger 2...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Sarcasm -- it's a great way to deal.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 8
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 15:12:50 EDT
In a message dated 7/21/1998 1:38:07 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.com writes:

> Scary thought: Carrier based Stonewalls ...
>
Nah, Submarine-based, now go and tremble...

-K
Message no. 9
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 15:15:19 EDT
In a message dated 7/21/1998 12:12:16 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
erikj@****.COM writes:

> >CAS "Stonewall" LABT (Low Altitude Battle Tank)
>
> >Cost: 92,032,500
>
> EGADS!! No wonder the CAS never built one, it would trash their entire
> budget/economy!
>
> Okay, so that's a bit of an exaggeration. But 92 million nuyen is
> extremely expensive, enough so that I doubt that most folks would find it
> cost effective, especially since upkeep and maintainence would have to be
> extremely expensive also.
>
> A cool design, but that's just way too expensive for my blood.
>
so then you don't want to reconsider this price vs. the price for a fighter
jet??? Compare and Save...

-K
Message no. 10
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 18:17:43 -0400
At 03:15 PM 7/21/98 EDT, you wrote:
>In a message dated 7/21/1998 12:12:16 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

>> A cool design, but that's just way too expensive for my blood.
>>
>so then you don't want to reconsider this price vs. the price for a fighter
>jet??? Compare and Save...

I don't know that a fighter-jet would cost 92 million in SR, according to
the rules. Does it? Honestly, I never had the urge to design one
according to R2.

A fighter jet and a LABT would have two totally different combat roles
anyway. You wouldn't send a LABT to dogfight an Eagle would you?

Look at the projected roles and costs for those vehicles. A LAV is a fast
moving, "light strike" or APC vehicle, at least for the most part, right?
A ground MBT is designed to beat the crap out of something and survive
itself. Mobile artillery in many ways, even if it isn't indirect fire.

An A-10 or similar craft is designed for air-to-ground support, to beat the
crap out of MBTs and other hardened targets, a bit like a MBT except it's
aerial. Various helicopters are designed to play a similar or
complementary role.

A normal LAV runs between, what 10 and 30 mil? An MBT would probably run
about 30 to 40. An A-10 should run something similar I'm guessing, and
choppers are much cheaper.

On the other hand, a single LABT is 92 mil, for which I can purchase
several purpose-designed MBTs or LAVs or A-10s, all of which do similar
jobs that the LABT is expected to, but cheaper and I can buy more.

I'm sure all my numbers are badly off and that you military sorts and
wanna-bes will correct my vehicle roles, but this makes sense to me.

I'd rather purchase 3 or 4 MBTs that I know do the job right and do it
cheaper than a LABT that won't do the job as well as 3 MBTs and will cost a
whole lot more to maintain. So while a LABT would work and is feasible,
the big problem as far as I'm concerned is that it's simply not cost
effective.

Erik J.


http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/dungeon/480/index.html
The Reality Check for a Fictional World
Message no. 11
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 17:23:32 -0500
On Tue, 21 Jul 1998 13:05:54 -0400 Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM> writes:
>At 04:14 AM 7/21/98 -0500, you wrote:
>>CAS "Stonewall" LABT (Low Altitude Battle Tank)

>>Cost: 92,032,500

>EGADS!! No wonder the CAS never built one, it would trash their entire
>budget/economy!
>
>Okay, so that's a bit of an exaggeration. But 92 million nuyen is
>extremely expensive, enough so that I doubt that most folks would find
it
>cost effective, especially since upkeep and maintainence would have to
be
>extremely expensive also.
>
>A cool design, but that's just way too expensive for my blood.
>
>Erik J.
<SNIP>

Actually, I had the idea that normal tanks run 10+ Mil a piece ... and a
friend of mine said that M1 Abrams and such tanks can run 30+ Mil ... Now
this was Meamory permitting for both of us ... so the numbers could be
WAY off ... anybody know the correct numbers?

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
o/` Trideo killed the Video Star ... o/`

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 12
From: Danyel N Woods <9604801@********.AC.NZ>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 11:11:51 +1200
Quoth Alfredo B Alves (1024 22-7-98 NZT):

>Actually, I had the idea that normal tanks run 10+ Mil a piece ... and
a
>friend of mine said that M1 Abrams and such tanks can run 30+ Mil ...
Now
>this was Meamory permitting for both of us ... so the numbers could be
>WAY off ... anybody know the correct numbers

*Tries to remember _Armoured Warfare_* The M-1A2 goes for about US$2.5
million per unit, including the latest armour package and electronics.
You can buy a Russian T-80 for about US$750K, but if you're facing
anything other than rust-buckets, it wouldn't be worth the money (or
casualties).

Danyel Woods - 9604801@********.ac.nz
'Your armour is strong - our tank doesn't care.'
Message no. 13
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 17:50:03 -0500
On Tue, 21 Jul 1998 15:15:19 EDT K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
writes:
>In a message dated 7/21/1998 12:12:16 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
>erikj@****.COM writes:
>> >CAS "Stonewall" LABT (Low Altitude Battle Tank)

>> >Cost: 92,032,500

>> EGADS!! No wonder the CAS never built one, it would trash their
entire
>> budget/economy!
>>
>> Okay, so that's a bit of an exaggeration. But 92 million nuyen is
>> extremely expensive, enough so that I doubt that most folks would
find it
>> cost effective, especially since upkeep and maintainence would have
to be
>> extremely expensive also.
>>
>> A cool design, but that's just way too expensive for my blood.

>so then you don't want to reconsider this price vs. the price for a
>fighter
>jet??? Compare and Save...
>
>-K

Ack!!!!! I went window shopping to compare prices in R2 :) the Jet
Fighters were 50-60 Mil ... but I noticed something else ... They used
1.5 times their bod for detemining the number of weapon mounts they could
use instead of the standard straight body ... For the Stonewall LABT, I
used straight body ... I had "room" for more and didn't know it! I think
the only way to use them (since I'm pretty much out of CF) is to add 3
external Missile Mounts ... not good :(

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
o/` Trideo killed the Video Star ... o/`

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 14
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 03:51:09 EDT
In a message dated 7/21/1998 7:43:44 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.COM writes:

> Ack!!!!! I went window shopping to compare prices in R2 :) the Jet
> Fighters were 50-60 Mil ... but I noticed something else ... They used
> 1.5 times their bod for detemining the number of weapon mounts they could
> use instead of the standard straight body ... For the Stonewall LABT, I
> used straight body ... I had "room" for more and didn't know it! I think
> the only way to use them (since I'm pretty much out of CF) is to add 3
> external Missile Mounts ... not good :(
>
be careful D. Ghost, external missile mounts are treated strangely with
regards to R2..

-K
Message no. 15
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 12:14:59 +0100
K is the Symbol said on 3:51/22 Jul 98,...

> be careful D. Ghost, external missile mounts are treated strangely with
> regards to R2..

There's one thing that would benefit from clearing up, yes: Do
external rocket mounts count against the same limit as
firmpoints/hardpoints? The datafiles for James Ojaste's The Shop
make it out as if they do, but my conclusion is that they don't --
IMHO you can fill up the vehicle with hard- and firmpoints, and
also add a number of rocket mounts equal to the vehicle's Body.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Sarcasm -- it's a great way to deal.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 16
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 12:14:59 +0100
Erik Jameson said on 18:17/21 Jul 98,...

> I'd rather purchase 3 or 4 MBTs that I know do the job right and do it
> cheaper than a LABT that won't do the job as well as 3 MBTs and will cost a
> whole lot more to maintain. So while a LABT would work and is feasible,
> the big problem as far as I'm concerned is that it's simply not cost
> effective.

Agreed. While LAVs are cool from a game perspective, they just
don't really fit into the SR game world very well, IMHO. If it had
been a true SF game, with spacefaring elves and trolls and a
much higher level of technology, they might fit much better.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Sarcasm -- it's a great way to deal.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 17
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 12:14:59 +0100
Alfredo B Alves said on 17:23/21 Jul 98,...

> Actually, I had the idea that normal tanks run 10+ Mil a piece ... and a
> friend of mine said that M1 Abrams and such tanks can run 30+ Mil ... Now
> this was Meamory permitting for both of us ... so the numbers could be
> WAY off ... anybody know the correct numbers?

According to the US Marine Corps web site, an M1A1 Abrams has
a replacement cost of around US$4,200,000, IIRC. However I've
also heard totally different numbers being quoted, I think on a
Discovery Channel show ("Extreme Machines: Tanks", I believe)
but I can't remember what those numbers were.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Sarcasm -- it's a great way to deal.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 18
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 06:34:34 EDT
In a message dated 7/21/98 4:19:24 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.COM writes:

> Ok, here they are, Tell me what I need to fix
>
> Note: I used a military Mark up of x5

Sounds reasonable considering we are talking about the Stonewall.

> Btw, something occured to me ... the milspec markup may be like a street
> index and only applies for go through the wrong channels or for going
> through the proper channels with the paper work and permits and what not
> and such ... In that case, it might not apply when determining the cost
> for a government or corporation to build security and milspec vehicles if
> they are equiped to build the neccisarry parts ... (ie, Ares,
> Aztechnology, and CAS would have no problems but MCT would) ... do you
> agree? (If so, then the cost of this Stonewall would be 18,406,000 ...
> BIG difference, neh?)

It is a big difference, but I don't believe that it is a good indication of
the street index, what it reflects is the higher (supposedly) standards for
which certain materials and vehicles are all made from.

> CAS "Stonewall" LABT (Low Altitude Battle Tank)
> Handling Speed Accel Body Armor Sig
> 2 150/650 40 6 24 3

I like that handling. Signature still honks, could you have raised it perhaps
to a 6 or 7 using the Improve Signature under the design options?

> Autonav Pilot Sensor Cargo Load
> 4 - 8 1.5 3000

What if you threw in a Pilot (5), to reflect either a back-up rigger (the
computer that is), as they do mention that the Stonewalls had some form of
quasi-AI piloting system.

> Seating: 1 ejection + 3 bucket Setup/Breakdown: NA
> Entry Points: 1h + 1d +1r Landing/Takeoff: VSTOL
> Fuel: Jet (7,500 liters) Economy: .3 km/liter
> Point Value: 61,352.02 Cost: 92,032,500
> Template: Thunderbird Reference: RBB
> Other Features:
> Datajack Port x4
> Drive-By-Wire 3
> ECM 8, ECCM 8
> ED 5, ECD 5
> Medium AA remote turret (mounting 120 mm Railgun [stats = Relampago] with
> room for 50 rounds + a Victory Assault Cannon with 12 points of recoil
> compensation and room for 500 rounds both with smartlink II integration)
> Life Support 30 Man hours
> RAM 3
> Rigger Adaptation x 4
> Smart Armor System
> Smart Materials
> Structural Agility 3

How about CMCs (Contigency Maneuver Controls), this way the Stonewall can stay
up in the air longer and not suffer mods due to damage (I would say no more
than 6 point worth, and we do have experience with that here).

> Ok ... The Econ gives it an opperating range of about 2,250 km or 1,398
> miles

Nice ... means this thing can make the hop across the Atlantic with only a
refueling stopover near or on the Azores.

> The 3 extra seats were buckets seats because I couldn't find the stats
> for ejection seats in R2 ...

The seats are just modified to be ejection seats, the R2 says they take up no
extra space or extra cost at all.

> a crew of 4 should be able to manage ... Ussual config would probably be
> 1 Pilot + 1 Gunner + 1 EW Rigger + 1 Commander/(Mage or Rigger)

I like the set-up.

> All the members of the crew would capable of taking over each other's
> roles in case anyone was hurt ... (ie, in order to be eligable to man the
> Stonewall, first, you have to be in the CAS military, and second, you
> have to be a capable Pilot, Gunner, and EW ... though you'll most likely
> be assigned whatever role you're best at ...) Note: if the CAS can't have
> a Magically Active Commander (possibly from Texas A&M&M) , he/she'll be
> equiped with Rigger control gear ...
>
> Btw, How much would it cost to install that Fiber optic sighting system
> form corp security in to this thing? A friend is borrowing mine so I
> can't say/guess ... :/

The cost per meter for the fibre optic cabling is 100 nuyen per meter (IIRC).
Cameras are 25,000 nuyen, goggles are 5,000 nuyen.

> The Life Support, and SAS were originally in the design but I forgot to
> include them in my original Post :/

OK.

> The 1.5 CF is a storage are in the cabin.
>
> I think this is the version I'd go with ... Btw Gurth, I seem to be able
> create a vehicle with the T-Bird chassis that is more effective, IMO,
> than I can with a tracked MBT chassis ... aside from the MBT allowing for
> bigger guns ... The T-Bird just has so much more available CF ... and I
> used almost ALL of it :)

That is the trade-off for being able to move faster and fly all at the same
time.

> heh, also, the only thing stopping me from adding more armor was that 24
> was pretty damn high already ...

And the weight added also would have complicated things somewhat too.

> And Mike, I thought about what you said about and underbelly mount but I
> still think this config is more appropriate ... feel free to modify it
> for you PBeM if you wish :) I would reccomend a small turret with an
> autocannon, railgun, or vehicle laser and then add some external AVM
> systems ... you could also go for a small turret on top and an underbelly
> mini turret but you couldn't mount anything heavier than a HMG, a
> vindicator minigun, or an AVM/AVR launcher ... better, IMO, to go for the
> external AVM launchers ...

Thanks for the suggestions ... I'll keep them in mind ...

> Btw, Gurth ... I'm not sure if I'll be to come up with any decent decker
> comments ... I won't have time ... do you mind doing this yourself? or
> Shanghaiing--err--persuading another listmember to do it? ;)

>>>>>[I once had Beauty escorted by a pair of Stonewalls one time after
helping out some skyjacked people by bringing them back. They would not let
me get anywhere near them at the time. Now, with Beauty fully refitted and
whatnot, the Stonewall crews want to get near Beauty just to see her now.
Funny.]<<<<<
------ (Herc : The Forge / Olympian Strike Group)

-Herc
------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
Message no. 19
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 06:38:07 EDT
In a message dated 7/21/98 1:27:53 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.COM writes:

> >> Medium AA remote turret (mounting 120 mm Railgun [stats = Relampago]
> with
> >> room for 50 rounds + a Victory Assault Cannon with 12 points of
> recoil
> >> compensation and room for 500 rounds both with smartlink II
> integration)
>
> >Nice boom boom
>
> hmmmm ... perhaps I should have given both guns Gyroscopic stabalization?
> (6 for the railgun, 12 for the autocannon) That way, you'd have no
> problem shooting while moving/maneuvering ... That would pretty much
> garauntee lots of successes unless the gunner sucks ...

The benefits of having Gyroscopic Stabilization IMHO, is out-weighed by the
mods to Handling it gives.

> Querry: Is a railgun considered a Anti-vehicle and/or armor piercing?

Nope, you have to get special rounds for it the rounds to be considered APDS.

> Also the EW gear should be good enough to foul up the enemy severely and
> keep the enemy from fouling them up ... unless the enemy brings out the
> heavy EW stuff (doesn't the US Airforce have planes dedicated to EW,
> sensors, and communications?)

There is another way the Stonewall could go around, under -TOTAL EMCON-
(Emissions Control), this would cut down on their sensor footprint.

-Herc
-------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
Message no. 20
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 06:41:24 EDT
In a message dated 7/21/98 1:27:53 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.COM writes:

> >WOW! Mommy, I want one..
>
> Is that an appropriate range? I have no idea ... I figured this needed
> good range since it can't really be airdropped (I think) or transported
> in the way MBTs can but I don't know ... I guess MBTs are bigger than
> LAVs so I guess that presumption is false ...
>
> Scary thought: Carrier based Stonewalls ...

How about an even scarier thought ... take the cargo submarine from
Cyberpirates, modify the cargo section, add in an elevator, several elevators
... the sub surfaces, the MBTs are moved to the surface and launch ... the
opposition only has a several minutes forewarning versus three to four times
that much time (or more).

Something I designed called the CAS Hastings, is basically three cargo subs
put together and all the thing is is an undersea aircraft carrier carrying
minisubs, jet fighters, and panzers.

-Herc
-------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
Message no. 21
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 08:03:20 -0500
On Wed, 22 Jul 1998 12:14:59 +0100 Gurth <gurth@******.NL> writes:
>K is the Symbol said on 3:51/22 Jul 98,...
>> be careful D. Ghost, external missile mounts are treated strangely
with
>> regards to R2..

>There's one thing that would benefit from clearing up, yes: Do
>external rocket mounts count against the same limit as
>firmpoints/hardpoints? The datafiles for James Ojaste's The Shop
>make it out as if they do, but my conclusion is that they don't --
>IMHO you can fill up the vehicle with hard- and firmpoints, and
>also add a number of rocket mounts equal to the vehicle's Body.
>
>--
>Gurth@******.nl -
<SNIP>

The way I read that was that the total weight of the ordinace determined
the number of weapon mounts it consumed ... and that it DID count towards
the limit of guns you can mount ... for every 1 firm point you stuff 300
kgs of missiles onto the bugger regardless of the actual number of
missile that means ... I can see how the text in R2 can go either way ...
IMO, what I said makes more sense than being able to load up on guns and
still room for a bunch of missiles ... I mean why couldn't you use that
room for guns (CF permitting)?

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
o/` Trideo killed the Video Star ... o/`

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 22
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 07:18:35 -0500
On Wed, 22 Jul 1998 06:41:24 EDT Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM> writes:
>In a message dated 7/21/98 1:27:53 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
>dghost@****.COM writes:
>> >WOW! Mommy, I want one..

>>Is that an appropriate range? I have no idea ... I figured this needed
>>good range since it can't really be airdropped (I think) or transported
>>in the way MBTs can but I don't know ... I guess MBTs are bigger than
>>LAVs so I guess that presumption is false ...
>>
>>Scary thought: Carrier based Stonewalls ...

>How about an even scarier thought ... take the cargo submarine from
>Cyberpirates, modify the cargo section, add in an elevator, several
elevators
>... the sub surfaces, the MBTs are moved to the surface and launch ...
the
>opposition only has a several minutes forewarning versus three to four
times
>that much time (or more).

even better :)

>Something I designed called the CAS Hastings, is basically three cargo
subs
>put together and all the thing is is an undersea aircraft carrier
carrying
>minisubs, jet fighters, and panzers.
>
>-Herc
>-------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.

What about putting full enviro seal in the LAV and Amphib Ops so the sub
doesn't have to break the surface? I'm not sure if you can get that to
work since you'd need to, IMO, have the jet exaust vents sealed while in
amphib mode and open before launching ... you'd have a few moments where
the water's getting into the engines and that'd screw you over ...
perhaps cabin overpressurization would accomodate this?

D.Ghost (Who is picturing a nice Aztlanner beach ...everyone is enjoying
themselves when a few slight mounds in the water starts to rise ... then
a dozen Stonewall LABTs break the surface. Engines whine then break into
a full-on roar the Stonewalls rise above the stunned beach-goers.
Suddenly, they fly off in an attack formation ...)

(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
o/` Trideo killed the Video Star ... o/`

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 23
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 07:07:25 -0500
On Wed, 22 Jul 1998 06:38:07 EDT Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM> writes:
>In a message dated 7/21/98 1:27:53 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
>dghost@****.COM writes:
>> >> Medium AA remote turret (mounting 120 mm Railgun [stats =
Relampago] with
>> >> room for 50 rounds + a Victory Assault Cannon with 12 points of
recoil
>> >> compensation and room for 500 rounds both with smartlink II
integration)

>> >Nice boom boom

>>hmmmm ... perhaps I should have given both guns Gyroscopic
stabalization?
>>(6 for the railgun, 12 for the autocannon) That way, you'd have no
>>problem shooting while moving/maneuvering ... That would pretty much
>>garauntee lots of successes unless the gunner sucks ...

>The benefits of having Gyroscopic Stabilization IMHO, is out-weighed by
the
>mods to Handling it gives.

WHOOPS! Missed that ... could still mount 6 points of it for the Railgun
so you'd have no problem firing while moving then leave the autocannon
with regular gunnery recoil comp :)

>>Querry: Is a railgun considered a Anti-vehicle and/or armor piercing?

>Nope, you have to get special rounds for it the rounds to be considered
APDS.

What about anti-vehicle? I got the impression that even vehicle mounted
toys aren't considered AV unless it specifically states it ... the
railgun being 120mm means your hurling a mass 1.2 m (~4 feet!) in
diameter at things right? IIRC, the PAC was automatically considered AP
... I would think the same applies to the auto cannon and considering the
size of these slugs, I would expect them to be at least AP and AV would
make sense ... would make the railguns more effective ... I mean what
would be the advantage of mounting a railgun (aside from the whip-crack
sound and the, IIRC, 8km [~1/2 mi!] range) over an autocannon (same
damage code but gets to fire up 12 rounds per phase)

>>Also the EW gear should be good enough to foul up the enemy severely
and
>>keep the enemy from fouling them up ... unless the enemy brings out the
>>heavy EW stuff (doesn't the US Airforce have planes dedicated to EW,
>>sensors, and communications?)

>There is another way the Stonewall could go around, under -TOTAL EMCON-
>(Emissions Control), this would cut down on their sensor footprint.
>
>-Herc
>-------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.

This is part of the reason I wasn't too worried about the sig, btw, all
that hefty EW gear ... but if it's not enough, toss in 3 levels Thermal
Baffles (No CF unless Jon Szeto / the R2 Errata says it was an error) and
boost the sig as a design option by 3 (think the cost is 600 Design
points and will give a sig of 6, 9 against radar and thermo thermo before
the EW guy gets a chance to boost it with ED ... now that would be
frighteneing ... a flying tank that doesn't show up on any of your
sensors ...)

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
o/` Trideo killed the Video Star ... o/`

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 24
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 07:56:33 -0500
On Wed, 22 Jul 1998 06:34:34 EDT Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM> writes:
>In a message dated 7/21/98 4:19:24 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
>dghost@****.COM writes:
>> Ok, here they are, Tell me what I need to fix
>>
>> Note: I used a military Mark up of x5

>Sounds reasonable considering we are talking about the Stonewall.

>> Btw, something occured to me ... the milspec markup may be like a
street
>> index and only applies for go through the wrong channels or for going
>> through the proper channels with the paper work and permits and what
not
>> and such ... In that case, it might not apply when determining the
cost
>> for a government or corporation to build security and milspec
vehicles if
>> they are equiped to build the neccisarry parts ... (ie, Ares,
>> Aztechnology, and CAS would have no problems but MCT would) ... do
you
>> agree? (If so, then the cost of this Stonewall would be 18,406,000
...
>> BIG difference, neh?)

>It is a big difference, but I don't believe that it is a good indication
of
>the street index, what it reflects is the higher (supposedly) standards
for
>which certain materials and vehicles are all made from.

Okay. Makes sense for most things but not for, say why sensors 1-4 are
civilian, 5-7 are Security, and 8-10 are Milspec ... IMO, the base price
reflects the improved quality enough and the rest of the cost is just
trying to get ahold of the buggers outside of true military channels (ie,
merc channels doesn't cut it :) ... also does the final price reflect
bulk purchases? IMO, it shouldn't and so if, CAS is building these en
masse, the price should drop perhaps by 20%?

>> CAS "Stonewall" LABT (Low Altitude Battle Tank)
>> Handling Speed Accel Body Armor Sig
>> 2 150/650 40 6 24 3

>I like that handling. Signature still honks, could you have raised it
perhaps
>to a 6 or 7 using the Improve Signature under the design options?

I just couldn't see a tank being all that stealthy (outside of EW) ...
something else: I should have put in Battletac systems in this bugger ...
DOH!

>> Autonav Pilot Sensor Cargo Load
>> 4 - 8 1.5 3000

>What if you threw in a Pilot (5), to reflect either a back-up rigger
(the
>computer that is), as they do mention that the Stonewalls had some form
of
>quasi-AI piloting system.

I thought about it but couldn't think of a rationale ... thanks that
would be great :)

>> Seating: 1 ejection + 3 bucket Setup/Breakdown: NA
>> Entry Points: 1h + 1d +1r Landing/Takeoff: VSTOL
>> Fuel: Jet (7,500 liters) Economy: .3 km/liter
>> Point Value: 61,352.02 Cost: 92,032,500
>> Template: Thunderbird Reference: RBB
>> Other Features:
>> Datajack Port x4
>> Drive-By-Wire 3
>> ECM 8, ECCM 8
>> ED 5, ECD 5
>> Medium AA remote turret (mounting 120 mm Railgun [stats = Relampago]
with
>> room for 50 rounds + a Victory Assault Cannon with 12 points of
recoil
>> compensation and room for 500 rounds both with smartlink II
integration)
>> Life Support 30 Man hours
>> RAM 3
>> Rigger Adaptation x 4
>> Smart Armor System
>> Smart Materials
>> Structural Agility 3

>How about CMCs (Contigency Maneuver Controls), this way the Stonewall
can stay
>up in the air longer and not suffer mods due to damage (I would say no
more
>than 6 point worth, and we do have experience with that here).

CMC would be nice ... another idea: 2 levels of master workmanship
balanced with Custom built Quality factors ...

>> Ok ... The Econ gives it an opperating range of about 2,250 km or
1,398
>> miles

>Nice ... means this thing can make the hop across the Atlantic with only
a
>refueling stopover near or on the Azores.

<grins> plus you can mount external fueltanks ... </grins> also, there's
in-flight refueling ...

>> The 3 extra seats were buckets seats because I couldn't find the
stats
>> for ejection seats in R2 ...

>The seats are just modified to be ejection seats, the R2 says they take
up no
>extra space or extra cost at all.

That seems wrong ... (I'm not saying that that's not what R2 says but I
don't see how that could be correct, logically ...)

>> a crew of 4 should be able to manage ... Ussual config would probably
be
>> 1 Pilot + 1 Gunner + 1 EW Rigger + 1 Commander/(Mage or Rigger)

>I like the set-up.

cool ... An interesting idea, btw: someone suggested using nature spirits
to conceal vehicles ... (I can't remember who though ... might have been
one of my players, someone on IRC, or someone on the list ...) ... of
course you have to be careful with magic in Aztlan ... damn fovae :)

<SNIP>
>> Btw, How much would it cost to install that Fiber optic sighting
system
>> form corp security in to this thing? A friend is borrowing mine so I
>> can't say/guess ... :/

>The cost per meter for the fibre optic cabling is 100 nuyen per meter
(IIRC).
>Cameras are 25,000 nuyen, goggles are 5,000 nuyen.

cool, now set up the mage with this and you don't have a perriscope or
somesuch system that advertises "Mage on Board!" :)

>> The Life Support, and SAS were originally in the design but I forgot
to
>> include them in my original Post :/

>OK.

>> The 1.5 CF is a storage are in the cabin.
>>
>> I think this is the version I'd go with ... Btw Gurth, I seem to be
able
>> create a vehicle with the T-Bird chassis that is more effective, IMO,
>> than I can with a tracked MBT chassis ... aside from the MBT allowing
for
>> bigger guns ... The T-Bird just has so much more available CF ... and
I
>> used almost ALL of it :)

>That is the trade-off for being able to move faster and fly all at the
same
>time.

I thought you were saying that having more CF available was the downside
for being able to fly ... IMO, the tank's only has in its favor a lower
price tag and bigger guns (Like mount 3 or 4 autocannons in the turret
and firelink them so it's basically an autocannon with a 36-48 round per
phase ROF :)...

>> heh, also, the only thing stopping me from adding more armor was that
24
>> was pretty damn high already ...

>And the weight added also would have complicated things somewhat too.

Well, Load wouldn't be a problem ... the only problem with mounting more
armor is the Handling mod ... I think as far as just Load, this has
enough room for 54 more points of armor (the 3000 load above is NOT the
maxed out Load, btw and that's with a cutomized engine for more Load
...[adding a customized engine would give room for another 111 points of
armor]) ... but that would result in like an 11 handling ... however you
could get an armor rating of 30 with only a 3 Handling ... But like I
said, I stopped at 24 because I thought that was appropriate/enough ...

*Takes a moment to shudder at the thought of a flying brick with 189
points of armor*

>> And Mike, I thought about what you said about and underbelly mount
but I
>> still think this config is more appropriate ... feel free to modify
it
>> for you PBeM if you wish :) I would reccomend a small turret with an
>> autocannon, railgun, or vehicle laser and then add some external AVM
>> systems ... you could also go for a small turret on top and an
underbelly
>> mini turret but you couldn't mount anything heavier than a HMG, a
>> vindicator minigun, or an AVM/AVR launcher ... better, IMO, to go for
the
>> external AVM launchers ...

>Thanks for the suggestions ... I'll keep them in mind ...

<SNIP>
>-Herc
>------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.

Also, don't forget that missiles/rockets aren't armed until they are
ready to be fired ... I understand you had a bad experience with extern
fuel mounts ... or was that someone else?

Also, I just realized that bit about 1.5 times normal weapon mounts for
milspec vehicles ... actually gives room for a underbelly Mini-turret
perhaps with an AVM/AVR or a vindicator Minigun ...the problem is the CF
requirement ...

D.Ghost (Who is picturing a fleet of Stonewalls Physically Masked to
appear as Goodwill [?] icecream trucks flying in at top speed into Aztlan
...)
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"9 out of 10 guns in the CAS are pointed at Atzlan ..."

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 25
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:19:07 EDT
In a message dated 7/22/98 8:08:45 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.COM writes:

> What about putting full enviro seal in the LAV and Amphib Ops so the sub
> doesn't have to break the surface? I'm not sure if you can get that to
> work since you'd need to, IMO, have the jet exaust vents sealed while in
> amphib mode and open before launching ... you'd have a few moments where
> the water's getting into the engines and that'd screw you over ...
> perhaps cabin overpressurization would accomodate this?

I tried doing this with Beauty, the panzer I designed here, and Keith told me
that there is one problem with having a panzer underwater and trying to get
one into the air. But I think I have a way around this. A snorkel.

A snorkel could be attached to the top of the panzer, when the pilot wants to
bring the engines to full power for a take-off from the water, the snorkel is
raised above the water and then opened, this will allow the engine to being
sucking in the air that it needs to fan the fuel-air reaction to get thrust.
At the same time as the thrust begins to come out, the enviroseals on the
vents are reopened and by the time water is beginning to go up the vents, the
thrust will begin to push away at the water, and push it out of the vents.
The panzer can then perform a VTOL launch maneuver.

> D.Ghost (Who is picturing a nice Aztlanner beach ...everyone is enjoying
> themselves when a few slight mounds in the water starts to rise ... then
> a dozen Stonewall LABTs break the surface. Engines whine then break into
> a full-on roar the Stonewalls rise above the stunned beach-goers.
> Suddenly, they fly off in an attack formation ...)

Would frighten the crap out of a military strategist for the opposition.

-Herc
------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
Message no. 26
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:23:27 EDT
In a message dated 7/22/98 8:09:16 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.COM writes:

> >>Querry: Is a railgun considered a Anti-vehicle and/or armor piercing?
>
> >Nope, you have to get special rounds for it the rounds to be considered
> APDS.
>
> What about anti-vehicle? I got the impression that even vehicle mounted
> toys aren't considered AV unless it specifically states it ... the
> railgun being 120mm means your hurling a mass 1.2 m (~4 feet!) in
> diameter at things right? IIRC, the PAC was automatically considered AP
> ... I would think the same applies to the auto cannon and considering the
> size of these slugs, I would expect them to be at least AP and AV would
> make sense ... would make the railguns more effective ... I mean what
> would be the advantage of mounting a railgun (aside from the whip-crack
> sound and the, IIRC, 8km [~1/2 mi!] range) over an autocannon (same
> damage code but gets to fire up 12 rounds per phase)

Okay, when vehicle rounds are used against personnel, the rounds are
automatically considered as APDS. If you wanted the rounds to be AVPDS (Anti
Vehicular Piercing Disposable Sabot), you just pay more for the round, that's
all.

> >>Also the EW gear should be good enough to foul up the enemy severely
> and
> >>keep the enemy from fouling them up ... unless the enemy brings out the
> >>heavy EW stuff (doesn't the US Airforce have planes dedicated to EW,
> >>sensors, and communications?)
>
> >There is another way the Stonewall could go around, under -TOTAL EMCON-
> >(Emissions Control), this would cut down on their sensor footprint.
> >
> >-Herc
> >-------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
>
> This is part of the reason I wasn't too worried about the sig, btw, all
> that hefty EW gear ... but if it's not enough, toss in 3 levels Thermal
> Baffles (No CF unless Jon Szeto / the R2 Errata says it was an error) and
> boost the sig as a design option by 3 (think the cost is 600 Design
> points and will give a sig of 6, 9 against radar and thermo thermo before
> the EW guy gets a chance to boost it with ED ... now that would be
> frighteneing ... a flying tank that doesn't show up on any of your
> sensors ...)

Don't forget to toss in RAM into the mix ... and then the sig climbs even
higher ...

-Herc
------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
Message no. 27
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:28:20 EDT
In a message dated 7/22/98 8:09:53 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.COM writes:

> Also, don't forget that missiles/rockets aren't armed until they are
> ready to be fired ... I understand you had a bad experience with extern
> fuel mounts ... or was that someone else?

Yes, and just because the missile / rocket / bomb is not armed does not mean
that the explosive ordinance can't be set off ... ever heard of a sniper
shooting a tank and hitting the ammo storage box ... the tank does not look to
be in very good shape after the explosion.

> Also, I just realized that bit about 1.5 times normal weapon mounts for
> milspec vehicles ... actually gives room for a underbelly Mini-turret
> perhaps with an AVM/AVR or a vindicator Minigun ...the problem is the CF
> requirement ...

LOL on finding more space then ...

-Herc
------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
------------- Who would not mind posting Beauty, but K says not to. You all
would have a problem with her.
Message no. 28
From: Sommers <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:57:40 -0400
At 09:19 AM 7/22/98 EDT, you wrote:
>In a message dated 7/22/98 8:08:45 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
>dghost@****.COM writes:
>
>> What about putting full enviro seal in the LAV and Amphib Ops so the sub
>> doesn't have to break the surface? I'm not sure if you can get that to
>> work since you'd need to, IMO, have the jet exaust vents sealed while in
>> amphib mode and open before launching ... you'd have a few moments where
>> the water's getting into the engines and that'd screw you over ...
>> perhaps cabin overpressurization would accomodate this?
>
>I tried doing this with Beauty, the panzer I designed here, and Keith told me
>that there is one problem with having a panzer underwater and trying to get
>one into the air. But I think I have a way around this. A snorkel.
>
>A snorkel could be attached to the top of the panzer, when the pilot wants to
>bring the engines to full power for a take-off from the water, the snorkel is
>raised above the water and then opened, this will allow the engine to being
>sucking in the air that it needs to fan the fuel-air reaction to get thrust.
>At the same time as the thrust begins to come out, the enviroseals on the
>vents are reopened and by the time water is beginning to go up the vents, the
>thrust will begin to push away at the water, and push it out of the vents.
>The panzer can then perform a VTOL launch maneuver.

I think what you're thinking is the way that diesal subs can run underwater
at periscope depth by running a snorkel up to provide the air for
combustion. That works because the diesal engine doesn't need an awful big
amount of oxygen for combustion. Even for a sub sized engine, a relatively
small snorkel will do it.

OTOH, jet turbines need large amounts of air going through at a constant
and fairly high rate in order to run their processes. Look at the jets on a
737 next time your at the airport. The jet for an LAV is smaller than that,
although not by a huge amount. Now try to imagine that is going to be fed
by a little snorkle. I don't have the figures off the top of my head, but
you there is a LARGE amount of air mass that moves through a turbine every
second.

If you really wanted to have an LAV that could take off under water, I
would say either give it the Amphibious option with the water jets to get
it on top of the water, or use large amounts of compressed air to feed it
through until its airborne and you can start up the compressors.

Either way I wouldn't recomend it though. There have been many documented
cases of jets having sudden flameouts because they're flying through the
rain and a solid sheet hits the engines for a second. You fight not be able
to put out an engine with a firehose, but one bucket of water and the
engine is off. Now think about an LAV right on the water, kicking up a lot
of spray and sheets of water... <glub, glub>

>> D.Ghost (Who is picturing a nice Aztlanner beach ...everyone is enjoying
>> themselves when a few slight mounds in the water starts to rise ... then
>> a dozen Stonewall LABTs break the surface. Engines whine then break into
>> a full-on roar the Stonewalls rise above the stunned beach-goers.
>> Suddenly, they fly off in an attack formation ...)
>
>Would frighten the crap out of a military strategist for the opposition.

Cool picture though....

>-Herc
>------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.

Sommers
"Who knows about this stuff, propulsion being one of by good classes."
Message no. 29
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 08:54:22 -0500
On Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:23:27 EDT Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM> writes:
>In a message dated 7/22/98 8:09:16 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
>dghost@****.COM writes:
>
<SNIP>
>> >>Also the EW gear should be good enough to foul up the enemy severely
and
>> >>keep the enemy from fouling them up ... unless the enemy brings out
the
>> >>heavy EW stuff (doesn't the US Airforce have planes dedicated to EW,
>> >>sensors, and communications?)

>> >There is another way the Stonewall could go around, under -TOTAL
EMCON-
>> >(Emissions Control), this would cut down on their sensor footprint.
<SNIP Sig>

>> This is part of the reason I wasn't too worried about the sig, btw,
all
>> that hefty EW gear ... but if it's not enough, toss in 3 levels
Thermal
>> Baffles (No CF unless Jon Szeto / the R2 Errata says it was an error)
and
>> boost the sig as a design option by 3 (think the cost is 600 Design
>> points and will give a sig of 6, 9 against radar and thermo thermo
before
>> the EW guy gets a chance to boost it with ED ... now that would be
>> frighteneing ... a flying tank that doesn't show up on any of your
>> sensors ...)

>Don't forget to toss in RAM into the mix ... and then the sig climbs
even
>higher ...
>
>-Herc
>------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.

RAM was in the mix from the start ... you didn't notice that?

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
o/` Trideo killed the Video Star ... o/`

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 30
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:03:34 -0500
On Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:28:20 EDT Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM> writes:
>In a message dated 7/22/98 8:09:53 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
>dghost@****.COM writes:
>> Also, don't forget that missiles/rockets aren't armed until they are
>> ready to be fired ... I understand you had a bad experience with
extern
>> fuel mounts ... or was that someone else?

>Yes, and just because the missile / rocket / bomb is not armed does not
mean
>that the explosive ordinance can't be set off ... ever heard of a sniper
>shooting a tank and hitting the ammo storage box ... the tank does not
look to
>be in very good shape after the explosion.

Well, that's different ... I could be wrong but, but as I understand it,
when a missile/rocket is not armed, the warhead is actually fairly
involitile ... Though how this can be achieved easily, I can't see so I'm
probably wrong ... :)

>> Also, I just realized that bit about 1.5 times normal weapon mounts
for
>> milspec vehicles ... actually gives room for a underbelly Mini-turret
>> perhaps with an AVM/AVR or a vindicator Minigun ...the problem is the
CF
>> requirement ...

>LOL on finding more space then ...

Actually, this is the first vehicle I designed where I had excessive
amounts of Load remaining and little or no CF ... then again, this is
also the first milspec vehicle I desgned ... My favorite though is still
my rigger's puppy drone ... he controls it with a cranial RCD ... I wish
I could of have mounted a Str 2 mechanical arm on the bugger for the head
but the best the load would allow was Str 1 ... :/

>-Herc
>------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
>------------- Who would not mind posting Beauty, but K says not to. You
all
>would have a problem with her.

Not I. :P

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
o/` Trideo killed the Video Star ... o/`

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 31
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 08:52:23 -0500
On Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:19:07 EDT Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM> writes:
>In a message dated 7/22/98 8:08:45 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
>dghost@****.COM writes:
>> What about putting full enviro seal in the LAV and Amphib Ops so the
sub
>> doesn't have to break the surface? I'm not sure if you can get that
to
>> work since you'd need to, IMO, have the jet exaust vents sealed while
in
>> amphib mode and open before launching ... you'd have a few moments
where
>> the water's getting into the engines and that'd screw you over ...
>> perhaps cabin overpressurization would accomodate this?

>I tried doing this with Beauty, the panzer I designed here, and Keith
told me
>that there is one problem with having a panzer underwater and trying to
get
>one into the air. But I think I have a way around this. A snorkel.
>
>A snorkel could be attached to the top of the panzer, when the pilot
wants to
>bring the engines to full power for a take-off from the water, the
snorkel is
>raised above the water and then opened, this will allow the engine to
being
>sucking in the air that it needs to fan the fuel-air reaction to get
thrust.
>At the same time as the thrust begins to come out, the enviroseals on
the
>vents are reopened and by the time water is beginning to go up the
vents, the
>thrust will begin to push away at the water, and push it out of the
vents.
>The panzer can then perform a VTOL launch maneuver.

That gives me an idea ... why not try and combine a hovercraft and LAV in
one? For most intents and purposes it would be redundant and a waste but
if you have your heart set on the above, you could try something like
that ... the hovercraft doesn't need to go anywhere so it can be
underpowered ... it just needs to be able to get the LAV out of the water
and since AFAIK, hovercrafts use fan-type thingies (technical term ;) for
this, being in or partially in the water won't be a problem ...

>> D.Ghost (Who is picturing a nice Aztlanner beach ...everyone is
enjoying
>> themselves when a few slight mounds in the water starts to rise ...
then
>> a dozen Stonewall LABTs break the surface. Engines whine then break
into
>> a full-on roar the Stonewalls rise above the stunned beach-goers.
>> Suddenly, they fly off in an attack formation ...)

>Would frighten the crap out of a military strategist for the opposition.
>
>-Herc
>------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.

I'd also hate to be one of the beach-goers ... :)

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
o/` Trideo killed the Video Star ... o/`

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 32
From: The Bookworm <Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:44:33 -0500
On Wed, 22 Jul 1998, Alfredo B Alves wrote:

> railgun being 120mm means your hurling a mass 1.2 m (~4 feet!) in
> diameter at things right?

one thousand mm = one meter. so 120mm = 0.12 meters or 4.7 inches. still a
fairly big round but not on the multi feet range. Another case of the
American School system at work i bet. :)

Thomas Price
aka The Bookworm
thomas.m.price@*******.edu
tmprice@***********.com
Message no. 33
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 10:04:58 -0500
On Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:44:33 -0500 The Bookworm
<Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU> writes:
>On Wed, 22 Jul 1998, Alfredo B Alves wrote:
>> railgun being 120mm means your hurling a mass 1.2 m (~4 feet!) in
>> diameter at things right?

>one thousand mm = one meter. so 120mm = 0.12 meters or 4.7 inches. still
a
>fairly big round but not on the multi feet range. Another case of the
>American School system at work i bet. :)
>
> Thomas Price
<SNIP Sig>

*Slams head into wall ... reapeats*

I knew that didn't sound right ... and no, it's not the American schools
... I just never use Deca (or is Deci?) so I forget ... also, I think I
had a ruler with centimeters mislabeled as milimeters when I was little
... besides ... the dividing by a 1000 is too complicated ... give me
something to integrate or derive ... :)

Still, I wouldn't want to be hit by a slug approaching half a foot
accross ... How long would it be? a foot? a foot and a half? does
railgun ammo spin? I assume it does since that helps with the accuracy
in which case, it'd need to be long than it is wide and aerodynamic :)

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
o/` Trideo killed the Video Star ... o/`

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 34
From: Sommers <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 11:24:08 -0400
At 10:04 AM 7/22/98 -0500, you wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:44:33 -0500 The Bookworm
><Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU> writes:
>>On Wed, 22 Jul 1998, Alfredo B Alves wrote:

<snip other railgun stuff>

>Still, I wouldn't want to be hit by a slug approaching half a foot
>accross ... How long would it be? a foot? a foot and a half? does
>railgun ammo spin? I assume it does since that helps with the accuracy
>in which case, it'd need to be long than it is wide and aerodynamic :)

The slugs that they use in railguns now are nowhere near 120mm. From the
tests that I've read about, the slug itself is usually about 1-2 inches
wide by 4-6 inches long (3cm x 14cm approx). Its not very aerodynamic, just
a blunt metalic cylinder covered in Teflon.

These are the tests they've done that the slug goes through 4-6 inches of
steel plate at distances of 3-5 klicks. I'd call that armor piercing.

IMHO, railguns aren't going to do huge amounts of damage, as in the Damage
Code. They het all of their effectiveness from the ridiculous speeds they
get. So it would have a high Power and be considered Armor Piercing, for
both people and Vehicles. There would tend to be a lot of blow through of
rounds as it passes right through the armor. Especially since they probably
wouldn't have any explosive charge in them.

It really wouldn't be an effective weapon against things like tanks and
ships, because of the lack of explosive power. But aginst planes, and
especially missiles, it would be great because its so fast moving it has
the oppurtunity to hit better. In a plane or missile there are much more
parts that are vital to control that could be damaged by a slug ripping
through it. The target might not be destroyed, but damaged enough to be
ineffective.

>
>D.Ghost
>(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
>o/` Trideo killed the Video Star ... o/`
>

Sommers
"The Popular Science and Discovery Channel junky."
Message no. 35
From: bryan.covington@****.COM
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 11:36:43 -0400
> IMHO, railguns aren't going to do huge amounts of damage, as in the
> Damage
> Code. They het all of their effectiveness from the ridiculous speeds
> they
> get. So it would have a high Power and be considered Armor Piercing,
> for
> both people and Vehicles. There would tend to be a lot of blow through
> of
> rounds as it passes right through the armor. Especially since they
> probably
> wouldn't have any explosive charge in them.
>
Not necessarily. I have seen trials with what amounts to
a discarding sabot type system. A near conventional round is placed in a
holder of sorts. The holder is magnetic and takes the acceleration,
dragging the explosive round along with it. Once out of the barrel and
going mind warpingly fast, the holder falls away and the shell continues
on to the target, packed with explosives.

> It really wouldn't be an effective weapon against things like tanks
> and
> ships, because of the lack of explosive power. But aginst planes, and
> especially missiles, it would be great because its so fast moving it
> has
> the oppurtunity to hit better. In a plane or missile there are much
> more
> parts that are vital to control that could be damaged by a slug
> ripping
> through it. The target might not be destroyed, but damaged enough to
> be
> ineffective.
>
Ever hear of the anti-ship bombs they used in WWII?
There was no explosive, just a big hunk of iron. The bomb hit a pretty
good clip on its way down and just kept going, deck by deck, and out the
bottom of the ship, which promptly started filling with water. Knock a
few 120mm holes in a ship around or below the waterline and see how
happy the crew is.
Message no. 36
From: Sommers <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 11:57:47 -0400
At 11:36 AM 7/22/98 -0400, you wrote:
>> IMHO, railguns aren't going to do huge amounts of damage, as in the
>> Damage
>> Code. They het all of their effectiveness from the ridiculous speeds
>> they
>> get. So it would have a high Power and be considered Armor Piercing,
>> for
>> both people and Vehicles. There would tend to be a lot of blow through
>> of
>> rounds as it passes right through the armor. Especially since they
>> probably
>> wouldn't have any explosive charge in them.
>>
> Not necessarily. I have seen trials with what amounts to
>a discarding sabot type system. A near conventional round is placed in a
>holder of sorts. The holder is magnetic and takes the acceleration,
>dragging the explosive round along with it. Once out of the barrel and
>going mind warpingly fast, the holder falls away and the shell continues
>on to the target, packed with explosives.

I hadn't seen those but I can believe that they could do it. Myself, I
would think that there would be probelms of trying to uniformly accelerate
a mass that had a non-uniform mass distribution through a magnetic field
and not have some targeting problems. The front, filled with explosives,
would have less metal mass and accelerate differently that a solid slug.

In any case, all of the tests I've seen are small size slugs that gove
kinetic energy through speed. I just couldn't see you packing enough in to
make the explosive effective.

>
>> It really wouldn't be an effective weapon against things like tanks
>> and
>> ships, because of the lack of explosive power. But aginst planes, and
>> especially missiles, it would be great because its so fast moving it
>> has
>> the oppurtunity to hit better. In a plane or missile there are much
>> more
>> parts that are vital to control that could be damaged by a slug
>> ripping
>> through it. The target might not be destroyed, but damaged enough to
>> be
>> ineffective.
>>
> Ever hear of the anti-ship bombs they used in WWII?
>There was no explosive, just a big hunk of iron. The bomb hit a pretty
>good clip on its way down and just kept going, deck by deck, and out the
>bottom of the ship, which promptly started filling with water. Knock a
>few 120mm holes in a ship around or below the waterline and see how
>happy the crew is.

That would definitley do it. Thats why the Navy wanted to use the A-10 as a
ship buster. But there's a big difference between 120mm holes and 20mm
holes from a railgun. Those cold hurt a ship, but its going to take a while
to do a lot of damage. My point was that hitting a missile in flight would
knock it off target, probably destroying the guidance system. That
eliminates that missile as a threat. It would also have a chance to do the
same thing to aircraft, IMHO.

Sommers
"He's got range on us! And he's 20 klicks out!!"
Message no. 37
From: bryan.covington@****.COM
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 12:21:22 -0400
> > Not necessarily. I have seen trials with what amounts
> to
> >a discarding sabot type system. A near conventional round is placed
> in a
> >holder of sorts. The holder is magnetic and takes the acceleration,
> >dragging the explosive round along with it. Once out of the barrel
> and
> >going mind warpingly fast, the holder falls away and the shell
> continues
> >on to the target, packed with explosives.
>
> I hadn't seen those but I can believe that they could do it. Myself, I
> would think that there would be probelms of trying to uniformly
> accelerate
> a mass that had a non-uniform mass distribution through a magnetic
> field
> and not have some targeting problems. The front, filled with
> explosives,
> would have less metal mass and accelerate differently that a solid
> slug.
>
I think you are misreading my point. Let me try a ASCII
cross section... (brace yourselves)
---------------------------- <- gun barrel (with magnets and
such)
|~~~~~~~~| <- holder
| ______|
|----------------\ <- Shell
|----------------/
| ~~~~~~|
|________| <- holder
---------------------------- <- gun barrel (with magnets and
such)

If you can see this at all, its a cross section through
the holder and the shell. The shell has no connection and is basically a
passenger on the trip down the barrel of the railgun. The "holder" as I
call it is what is acted upon by the rail gun's magnets.

> In any case, all of the tests I've seen are small size slugs that gove
> kinetic energy through speed. I just couldn't see you packing enough
> in to
> make the explosive effective.
>
Every little bit helps. :)

> > Ever hear of the anti-ship bombs they used in WWII?
> >There was no explosive, just a big hunk of iron. The bomb hit a
> pretty
> >good clip on its way down and just kept going, deck by deck, and out
> the
> >bottom of the ship, which promptly started filling with water. Knock
> a
> >few 120mm holes in a ship around or below the waterline and see how
> >happy the crew is.
>
> That would definitley do it. Thats why the Navy wanted to use the A-10
> as a
> ship buster. But there's a big difference between 120mm holes and 20mm
> holes from a railgun. Those cold hurt a ship, but its going to take a
> while
> to do a lot of damage. My point was that hitting a missile in flight
> would
> knock it off target, probably destroying the guidance system. That
> eliminates that missile as a threat. It would also have a chance to do
> the
> same thing to aircraft, IMHO.
>
I wasn't disagreeing with the use of them as
anti-missile or AA weapons I was simply mentioning that while not as
devastating to a ship as a hit would be to a missile there would still
be some damage of note.
Message no. 38
From: "Droopy ." <mmanhardt@*****.NET>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 13:37:25 -0400
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats

> >Yes, and just because the missile / rocket / bomb is not armed does not
> mean
> >that the explosive ordinance can't be set off ... ever heard of a sniper
> >shooting a tank and hitting the ammo storage box ... the tank does not
> look to
> >be in very good shape after the explosion.

Never heard of a real life incident. In any case, the propellant for a
cannon round is different than a warhead.

>
> Well, that's different ... I could be wrong but, but as I understand it,
> when a missile/rocket is not armed, the warhead is actually fairly
> involitile ... Though how this can be achieved easily, I can't see so I'm
> probably wrong ... :)

The same way explosives are involitile until primed. Military grade
explosives are extremely hard to set off without preperation. I've
cooked by burning C-4 before. Its the blasting cap that is volitile,
and they are usually as protected as possible (and extremely
small.)


--Droopy
Message no. 39
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 13:51:33 EDT
In a message dated 7/22/1998 5:15:36 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
gurth@******.NL writes:

> > be careful D. Ghost, external missile mounts are treated strangely with
> > regards to R2..
>
> There's one thing that would benefit from clearing up, yes: Do
> external rocket mounts count against the same limit as
> firmpoints/hardpoints? The datafiles for James Ojaste's The Shop
> make it out as if they do, but my conclusion is that they don't --
> IMHO you can fill up the vehicle with hard- and firmpoints, and
> also add a number of rocket mounts equal to the vehicle's Body.
>
Sounds the same to me also. It is -strange- wording in those two-three pages
of the R2 ...

-K
Message no. 40
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 13:56:37 EDT
In a message dated 7/22/1998 5:42:36 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
Airwasp@***.COM writes:

> Something I designed called the CAS Hastings, is basically three cargo subs
> put together and all the thing is is an undersea aircraft carrier carrying
> minisubs, jet fighters, and panzers.
>
Just so everyone wants to get an idea, the "Hastings" comes from a Microsoft
"Rail Game" known as Deadly Tide that I picked up a few months back for only
$18. It's -tres cool-
-K
Message no. 41
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 13:59:08 -0400
At 09:19 AM 7/22/98 EDT, you wrote:

>I tried doing this with Beauty, the panzer I designed here, and Keith told me
>that there is one problem with having a panzer underwater and trying to get
>one into the air. But I think I have a way around this. A snorkel.

As Sommers mentioned, trying to supply jet engines with adequate air from a
snorkel would be nigh unto impossible.

But the concept of carrier sub launched LAVs is quite interesting; highly
specialized and certainly quite rare, but here's some other thoughts on
launching the LAVs...

Why not simply let the LAV float to the surface in a disposable raft sort
of thing? The carrier sub opens it's special underwater launch bay, then
the LAVs float to the surface, where they then fire up the engines and
rocket way. This procedure would probably trash the disposable raft too,
making it harder to find traces of it.

Or along a similar vein, why not use a whole other vehicle to bring the LAV
to the surface, a custodian or chaperone mini-sub that takes the LAV from
the carrier sub to the surface. Reusable.

Or you could possibly launch a LAV from the carrier much like a missile is
launched from underwater. Fire it out of the carrier sub, where it's
detachable and disposable launch rockets fire, giving it the power to get
itself airborne just long enough for the LAV engines to fire and take over.

All of which obviously require full EnviroSeal and probably a level of
Amphibious Operations to keep things sealed up nice and proper while
underwater.

And all of which allow the carrier sub to remain totally submerged.

Reactions?

Erik J.


http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/dungeon/480/index.html
The Reality Check for a Fictional World
Message no. 42
From: Sommers <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 14:07:18 -0400
At 12:21 PM 7/22/98 -0400, you wrote:
> I think you are misreading my point. Let me try a ASCII
>cross section... (brace yourselves)
> ---------------------------- <- gun barrel (with magnets and
>such)
> |~~~~~~~~| <- holder
> | ______|
> |----------------\ <- Shell
> |----------------/
> | ~~~~~~|
> |________| <- holder
> ---------------------------- <- gun barrel (with magnets and
>such)

No, I understand your point (although I liked the diagram). The point is
that the front end of the "projectile system" has less mass than the back
end. That has the potential to make it unstable.

A railgun works by taking a projectile that is (normally) made from a
uniform piece of some material such as aluminum or titaniium (the two most
common materials IIRC). The slug is floated in the barrel by magnetic
fields that line the barrel. To fire it, the polarization of the magnetic
field is varied so that it attracts the front of the slug and repels the
back. Its done in series down the barrel in an increasing rate, so that the
projectile is accelerated extremely quickly.

This is the reason that the rounds are small. If you increase the dimater
of the round by a factor of 2, from 20mm to 40mm, you increase the
circumfrance of the magnetic field by 6.3 times! Down the length of a 5
meter barrel, that's 30 times the field you needed before. SO you have to
put in 30 times as much power for one shot of 40 as you did for 20. The
physics of the system tend to dictate that you have a small high speed round.

Putting a shell in a holder, like an APDS round, should work theoretically.
The problem comes if the round is attached to the holder so that its off at
all. If an APDS round in a gun is mis-mated slightly, the trajectory of the
shot might be off a little, but it will still fire fairly close to the
target, since all of the force is behind the cartridge. In a railgun, the
force is distributed over the entire round, and in certain places pulled
while in other places pushed. Having a non-homgenous round increses the
chances tremendously that a flaw in the round will push it out of whack to
the barrel and causing a misfire.

The other problem I would have with this would be the speeds. These shots
go so fast that most of the time they punch right through. I'm not sure
that any explosives done on the rounds would be able to cause damage before
the round kept on going.

> If you can see this at all, its a cross section through
>the holder and the shell. The shell has no connection and is basically a
>passenger on the trip down the barrel of the railgun. The "holder" as I
>call it is what is acted upon by the rail gun's magnets.
>
>> In any case, all of the tests I've seen are small size slugs that gove
>> kinetic energy through speed. I just couldn't see you packing enough
>> in to
>> make the explosive effective.
>>
> Every little bit helps. :)
>
>> > Ever hear of the anti-ship bombs they used in WWII?
>> >There was no explosive, just a big hunk of iron. The bomb hit a
>> pretty
>> >good clip on its way down and just kept going, deck by deck, and out
>> the
>> >bottom of the ship, which promptly started filling with water. Knock
>> a
>> >few 120mm holes in a ship around or below the waterline and see how
>> >happy the crew is.
>>
>> That would definitley do it. Thats why the Navy wanted to use the A-10
>> as a
>> ship buster. But there's a big difference between 120mm holes and 20mm
>> holes from a railgun. Those cold hurt a ship, but its going to take a
>> while
>> to do a lot of damage. My point was that hitting a missile in flight
>> would
>> knock it off target, probably destroying the guidance system. That
>> eliminates that missile as a threat. It would also have a chance to do
>> the
>> same thing to aircraft, IMHO.
>>
> I wasn't disagreeing with the use of them as
>anti-missile or AA weapons I was simply mentioning that while not as
>devastating to a ship as a hit would be to a missile there would still
>be some damage of note.

Okay, I think we do agree on this point. Its a much better choice as an
ant-missile of anti-aircraft weapon that for a antt-ship or tank. They
would still be effective, but I think that you would get more bang for your
buck from other types of weapons.

Sommers
"The aircraft and weapons guy...at least of our group."
Message no. 43
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 14:09:54 EDT
In a message dated 7/22/1998 8:09:44 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.COM writes:

>
> Also, don't forget that missiles/rockets aren't armed until they are
> ready to be fired ... I understand you had a bad experience with extern
> fuel mounts ... or was that someone else?
>
No, -HE- had a good experience with them. -WE- had the bad experience...

-K
Message no. 44
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 14:12:06 EDT
In a message dated 7/22/1998 8:19:57 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
Airwasp@***.COM writes:

> > D.Ghost (Who is picturing a nice Aztlanner beach ...everyone is enjoying
> > themselves when a few slight mounds in the water starts to rise ... then
> > a dozen Stonewall LABTs break the surface. Engines whine then break
into
> > a full-on roar the Stonewalls rise above the stunned beach-goers.
> > Suddenly, they fly off in an attack formation ...)
>
> Would frighten the crap out of a military strategist for the opposition.
>
Yeah, just wait until those strategists get a -really- good look at the
"Inspyre", since we lost the "Conspyre II".

-K (who thinks, within a fictional game setting, you really can have a
helicopter go submersible and remain functional)
Message no. 45
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 14:13:38 EDT
In a message dated 7/22/1998 8:29:19 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
Airwasp@***.COM writes:

> -Herc
> ------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
> ------------- Who would not mind posting Beauty, but K says not to. You
all
> would have a problem with her.
>
No, that is not what "K" said, I said to use lenience on these poor souls,
they would probably snap in their shoes to behold that evidence of
Powergaming...

-K
Message no. 46
From: bryan.covington@****.COM
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 14:40:17 -0400
<snip my nasty drawing>

> No, I understand your point (although I liked the diagram). The point
> is
> that the front end of the "projectile system" has less mass than the
> back
> end. That has the potential to make it unstable.
>
Thanks.

<snip all the reasons my idea won't work :)>

How's this then. What if you had two (largeish) fins on
either side of the round. Each of these rides in a slot along the length
of the barrel. The magnets are focused on these fins rather than the
projectile itself. In actuality these would not necessarily need to
remain attached once the round leaves the barrel (unless you wanted to
make it aerodynamic and use them as control surfaces). They fall away
and the round continues on its way.

Don't make me draw again! I'll do it!

> The other problem I would have with this would be the speeds. These
> shots
> go so fast that most of the time they punch right through. I'm not
> sure
> that any explosives done on the rounds would be able to cause damage
> before
> the round kept on going.
>
I am really thinking about this in terms of long range
weapons. Something on the order of 10-20 clicks out. By that time the
arc will be an issue and speed will be about what it is now when the
Iowa fires the 16 inchers. The primary advantage here is that a nuclear
reactor can make electricity (to fuel a railgun) but not propellant (for
rockets or shells).
Message no. 47
From: "Mark J. Steedman" <Mark@******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 19:42:02 +0000
Alfredo B Alves

> <grins> plus you can mount external fueltanks ... </grins> also, there's
> in-flight refueling ...
Yeah can we say fire elemental <grins>

> cool ... An interesting idea, btw: someone suggested using nature spirits
> to conceal vehicles ... (I can't remember who though ... might have been
> one of my players, someone on IRC, or someone on the list ...) ... of
> course you have to be careful with magic in Aztlan ... damn fovae :)
>
Can be fun, force 10 air elementals and movement power are also
rather fun, ever seen a chopper make Airwolf look slow :) on one of
these i can just see it, theres a WHAT comming over the boarder at
Mach 5!!!! touch expensive but.

(also rather likely to attract FAR more attention than you bargained
for but).

Unfortunately the underwater LAV's do as was pointed out have a
serious 'water in the intakes' problem, though a suitably modified
boomer could probably deliver a couple if you were prepared to
surface the sub and wait for the deck to clear before you open the
hatches. The result on military planners will be just to install more
hydrophones to find the sub though :(

Mark
Message no. 48
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 13:37:21 -0500
On Wed, 22 Jul 1998 13:59:08 -0400 Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM> writes:
>At 09:19 AM 7/22/98 EDT, you wrote:

>>I tried doing this with Beauty, the panzer I designed here, and Keith
told me
>>that there is one problem with having a panzer underwater and trying to
get
>>one into the air. But I think I have a way around this. A snorkel.

>As Sommers mentioned, trying to supply jet engines with adequate air
from a
>snorkel would be nigh unto impossible.
>
>But the concept of carrier sub launched LAVs is quite interesting;
highly
>specialized and certainly quite rare, but here's some other thoughts on
>launching the LAVs...
>
>Why not simply let the LAV float to the surface in a disposable raft
sort
>of thing? The carrier sub opens it's special underwater launch bay,
then
>the LAVs float to the surface, where they then fire up the engines and
>rocket way. This procedure would probably trash the disposable raft
too,
>making it harder to find traces of it.

Raft would have to be durable enough to hang around long enough for the
LAV to power up and get going ... other wise *glub glub* ... also,
doesn't having a wet (from a trip to the surface) LAV cause problems?

>Or along a similar vein, why not use a whole other vehicle to bring the
LAV
>to the surface, a custodian or chaperone mini-sub that takes the LAV
from
>the carrier sub to the surface. Reusable.

This would work better ... especially if you can manage to keep the LAV
enclosed until it reaches the surface ...

>Or you could possibly launch a LAV from the carrier much like a missile
is
>launched from underwater. Fire it out of the carrier sub, where it's
>detachable and disposable launch rockets fire, giving it the power to
get
>itself airborne just long enough for the LAV engines to fire and take
over.

Uhm ... this is bad ... what if the engines don't power up? *splat!*

>All of which obviously require full EnviroSeal and probably a level of
>Amphibious Operations to keep things sealed up nice and proper while
>underwater.
>
>And all of which allow the carrier sub to remain totally submerged.
>
>Reactions?
>
>Erik J.
<SNIP Sig>

Not bad, but needs more work :)

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
o/` Trideo killed the Video Star ... o/`

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 49
From: Sommers <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 15:02:11 -0400
At 02:40 PM 7/22/98 -0400, you wrote:
> <snip my nasty drawing>
>
>> No, I understand your point (although I liked the diagram). The point
>> is
>> that the front end of the "projectile system" has less mass than the
>> back
>> end. That has the potential to make it unstable.
>>
> Thanks.
>
> <snip all the reasons my idea won't work :)>
>
> How's this then. What if you had two (largeish) fins on
>either side of the round. Each of these rides in a slot along the length
>of the barrel. The magnets are focused on these fins rather than the
>projectile itself. In actuality these would not necessarily need to
>remain attached once the round leaves the barrel (unless you wanted to
>make it aerodynamic and use them as control surfaces). They fall away
>and the round continues on its way.
>

You could do the fins, but it would still have a lot of drawbacks. If you
put the fins and try to push just those, you lose speed. One of the reasons
you get so much speed out of the shot is because you can shoot the
projectile as fast as the magnetic field can be switched electronically,
and the force can be transferred to the entire projectile, not just a part
of it. If you have a smooth cylindrical slug, it goes down the center of
the barrel every time. A cylinder in the middle of a field will get pushed
to the center every time becuase of the distribution of forces. It can spin
on its axis and have no effect whatsoever on the shot.

Adding the fins is just extra effort.

And I think I remembered where you saw that explosive shot thing. Some
groups like JPL will use a slug to fire into something that will then be
pushed into a barrier. Its like plugging up the barrel of a gun. Its gives
you great kinetic energy, but the accuracy sucks.

> Don't make me draw again! I'll do it!

I believe you!!

>> The other problem I would have with this would be the speeds. These
>> shots
>> go so fast that most of the time they punch right through. I'm not
>> sure
>> that any explosives done on the rounds would be able to cause damage
>> before
>> the round kept on going.
>>
> I am really thinking about this in terms of long range
>weapons. Something on the order of 10-20 clicks out. By that time the
>arc will be an issue and speed will be about what it is now when the
>Iowa fires the 16 inchers. The primary advantage here is that a nuclear
>reactor can make electricity (to fuel a railgun) but not propellant (for
>rockets or shells).
>

You're not thinking far enough. They do have ranges like that, but arc
isn't a problem. They're going fast enought that up to a certain (long)
range, its flight isn't ballistic, its flat!

The 16 inchers fire like 15 miles and take a few seconds to get there. They
don't move much faster than a regular bullet, they're just faster. A .45
slug goes about 950feet per second. That's about the speed of sound. Rifle
bullets go faster, maybe 1200 fps (off the top of my head, I could be off
by a bit). Rail guns measure their speeds in the multiple thousands of fps.
Like 30-40000. These baby's MOVE! That's why their kinetic energy is so
high, not the mass of the slug but the speed.

You don't need a lot of power for a railgun, you just need a few bursts of
a lot of power. Big difference. So most railguns designs that I've seen are
either fixed and attached to big power supplies or use high capacity/quick
discharge capacitors that are used kind of like rounds in a regular gun.
Once its used you eject it, and maybe charge it again later.

Sommers
"Got to get back to class to learn more stuff for shadowrun!"
Message no. 50
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 15:04:04 EDT
In a message dated 7/22/98 8:58:10 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU writes:

> At 09:19 AM 7/22/98 EDT, you wrote:
> >In a message dated 7/22/98 8:08:45 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
> >dghost@****.COM writes:
> >
> >> What about putting full enviro seal in the LAV and Amphib Ops so the sub
> >> doesn't have to break the surface? I'm not sure if you can get that to
> >> work since you'd need to, IMO, have the jet exaust vents sealed while
in
> >> amphib mode and open before launching ... you'd have a few moments
where
> >> the water's getting into the engines and that'd screw you over ...
> >> perhaps cabin overpressurization would accomodate this?
> >
> >I tried doing this with Beauty, the panzer I designed here, and Keith told
> me
> >that there is one problem with having a panzer underwater and trying to
get
> >one into the air. But I think I have a way around this. A snorkel.
> >
> >A snorkel could be attached to the top of the panzer, when the pilot wants
> to
> >bring the engines to full power for a take-off from the water, the snorkel
> is
> >raised above the water and then opened, this will allow the engine to
being
> >sucking in the air that it needs to fan the fuel-air reaction to get
thrust.
>
> >At the same time as the thrust begins to come out, the enviroseals on the
> >vents are reopened and by the time water is beginning to go up the vents,
> the
> >thrust will begin to push away at the water, and push it out of the vents.
> >The panzer can then perform a VTOL launch maneuver.
>
> I think what you're thinking is the way that diesal subs can run underwater
> at periscope depth by running a snorkel up to provide the air for
> combustion. That works because the diesal engine doesn't need an awful big
> amount of oxygen for combustion. Even for a sub sized engine, a relatively
> small snorkel will do it.
>
> OTOH, jet turbines need large amounts of air going through at a constant
> and fairly high rate in order to run their processes. Look at the jets on a
> 737 next time your at the airport. The jet for an LAV is smaller than that,
> although not by a huge amount. Now try to imagine that is going to be fed
> by a little snorkle. I don't have the figures off the top of my head, but
> you there is a LARGE amount of air mass that moves through a turbine every
> second.
>
> If you really wanted to have an LAV that could take off under water, I
> would say either give it the Amphibious option with the water jets to get
> it on top of the water, or use large amounts of compressed air to feed it
> through until its airborne and you can start up the compressors.

Since, IYHO, the snorkel would be ineffective, would another option for an
underwater launch be attaching rockets to the sides to provide some sort of
rocket assisted take-off.

The other option, a magical one, which I hoped to avoid. Is a spell which
forces forces the water away from the panzer. A Wind spell could then begin
feeding air into the intakes, allowing the engines to come up to full power,
and then the panzer takes off.

> Either way I wouldn't recomend it though. There have been many documented
> cases of jets having sudden flameouts because they're flying through the
> rain and a solid sheet hits the engines for a second. You fight not be able
> to put out an engine with a firehose, but one bucket of water and the
> engine is off. Now think about an LAV right on the water, kicking up a lot
> of spray and sheets of water... <glub, glub>

I agree, it does not take much for water to extinuish a jet engine.

> >> D.Ghost (Who is picturing a nice Aztlanner beach ...everyone is
enjoying
> >> themselves when a few slight mounds in the water starts to rise ...
then
> >> a dozen Stonewall LABTs break the surface. Engines whine then break
> into
> >> a full-on roar the Stonewalls rise above the stunned beach-goers.
> >> Suddenly, they fly off in an attack formation ...)
> >
> >Would frighten the crap out of a military strategist for the opposition.
>
> Cool picture though....
>
> >-Herc
> >------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
>
> Sommers
> "Who knows about this stuff, propulsion being one of by good classes."

Lucky you ...

And I still want a tech solution to the underwater launch.

Hey, Jon, could you launch one of the these using the same technique as used
to launch missiles from boomers today ?!?

-Herc
------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
Message no. 51
From: bryan.covington@****.COM
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 15:12:32 -0400
> You could do the fins, but it would still have a lot of drawbacks. If
> you
> put the fins and try to push just those, you lose speed. One of the
> reasons
> you get so much speed out of the shot is because you can shoot the
> projectile as fast as the magnetic field can be switched
> electronically,
> and the force can be transferred to the entire projectile, not just a
> part
> of it. If you have a smooth cylindrical slug, it goes down the center
> of
> the barrel every time. A cylinder in the middle of a field will get
> pushed
> to the center every time becuase of the distribution of forces. It can
> spin
> on its axis and have no effect whatsoever on the shot.
>
> Adding the fins is just extra effort.
>
> And I think I remembered where you saw that explosive shot thing. Some
> groups like JPL will use a slug to fire into something that will then
> be
> pushed into a barrier. Its like plugging up the barrel of a gun. Its
> gives
> you great kinetic energy, but the accuracy sucks.
>
Ok, nevermind.

> > Don't make me draw again! I'll do it!
>
> I believe you!!
>
I will rule the world with the threat of awful ASCII
drawings!! BWHUHAHAHAHAHA!!

> > I am really thinking about this in terms of long
> range
> >weapons. Something on the order of 10-20 clicks out. By that time the
> >arc will be an issue and speed will be about what it is now when the
> >Iowa fires the 16 inchers. The primary advantage here is that a
> nuclear
> >reactor can make electricity (to fuel a railgun) but not propellant
> (for
> >rockets or shells).
> >
>
> You're not thinking far enough. They do have ranges like that, but arc
> isn't a problem. They're going fast enought that up to a certain
> (long)
> range, its flight isn't ballistic, its flat!
>
> The 16 inchers fire like 15 miles and take a few seconds to get there.
> They
> don't move much faster than a regular bullet, they're just faster. A
> .45
> slug goes about 950feet per second. That's about the speed of sound.
> Rifle
> bullets go faster, maybe 1200 fps (off the top of my head, I could be
> off
> by a bit). Rail guns measure their speeds in the multiple thousands of
> fps.
> Like 30-40000. These baby's MOVE! That's why their kinetic energy is
> so
> high, not the mass of the slug but the speed.
>
Problem is that escape velocity is only +/-11,000mph.
You try to shoot something over the horizon at 35,000mph you'll go a
hell of a lot further than 20km your going into orbit.
This makes it a direct fire weapon only. Gonna piss off
all the artillery guys who have been learning parabolic math for 4
years.

> You don't need a lot of power for a railgun, you just need a few
> bursts of
> a lot of power. Big difference. So most railguns designs that I've
> seen are
> either fixed and attached to big power supplies or use high
> capacity/quick
> discharge capacitors that are used kind of like rounds in a regular
> gun.
> Once its used you eject it, and maybe charge it again later.
>
But the more power available, the more OFTEN you can
fire. A trickle charge is great for a few test shots, in combat that
baby's gonna be sucking some serious juice.
Message no. 52
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 15:14:52 EDT
In a message dated 7/22/98 9:07:57 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.COM writes:

> On Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:23:27 EDT Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM> writes:
> >In a message dated 7/22/98 8:09:16 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
> >dghost@****.COM writes:
> >
> <SNIP>
> >> >>Also the EW gear should be good enough to foul up the enemy
severely
> and
> >> >>keep the enemy from fouling them up ... unless the enemy brings out
> the
> >> >>heavy EW stuff (doesn't the US Airforce have planes dedicated to
EW,
> >> >>sensors, and communications?)
>
> >> >There is another way the Stonewall could go around, under -TOTAL
> EMCON-
> >> >(Emissions Control), this would cut down on their sensor footprint.
> <SNIP Sig>
>
> >> This is part of the reason I wasn't too worried about the sig, btw,
> all
> >> that hefty EW gear ... but if it's not enough, toss in 3 levels
> Thermal
> >> Baffles (No CF unless Jon Szeto / the R2 Errata says it was an error)
> and
> >> boost the sig as a design option by 3 (think the cost is 600 Design
> >> points and will give a sig of 6, 9 against radar and thermo thermo
> before
> >> the EW guy gets a chance to boost it with ED ... now that would be
> >> frighteneing ... a flying tank that doesn't show up on any of your
> >> sensors ...)
>
> >Don't forget to toss in RAM into the mix ... and then the sig climbs
> even
> >higher ...
> >
> >-Herc
> >------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
>
> RAM was in the mix from the start ... you didn't notice that?
>
Okay, I just did ... the sig should be a 5 now ... a base of 3, plus the RAM 3
... for a 6, minus 1 for the turret ... yields a 5.

-Herc
------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
Message no. 53
From: Sommers <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 15:18:03 -0400
At 03:04 PM 7/22/98 EDT, you wrote:
<snip a lot of stuff>
>
>Since, IYHO, the snorkel would be ineffective, would another option for an
>underwater launch be attaching rockets to the sides to provide some sort of
>rocket assisted take-off.

That could work, although it would be easier to use the rockets on the
surface than under the water. Once its up there use them as JATO units to
speed up to close to take off speed and then let go. You're still going to
have some probelms with water intakes in the turbines since you couldn't
have rockets big enough to launch it by itself and still be safe. You'd
also have problems with the viscosity of the water. At high speeds it tends
to drag you down. That's why hydrofoils take the boat out of the water:)

>The other option, a magical one, which I hoped to avoid. Is a spell which
>forces forces the water away from the panzer. A Wind spell could then begin
>feeding air into the intakes, allowing the engines to come up to full power,
>and then the panzer takes off.

That could work, although you have to get the mages there to do it. Maybe a
hearth (vehicle) spirit that used Guard on the engines.

>> Either way I wouldn't recomend it though. There have been many documented
>> cases of jets having sudden flameouts because they're flying through the
>> rain and a solid sheet hits the engines for a second. You fight not be
able
>> to put out an engine with a firehose, but one bucket of water and the
>> engine is off. Now think about an LAV right on the water, kicking up a lot
>> of spray and sheets of water... <glub, glub>
>
>I agree, it does not take much for water to extinuish a jet engine.

Yeah, you still ahve to beat that problem to make it work. I still think it
would be easier to have the sub surface.
>
>Lucky you ...
>
>And I still want a tech solution to the underwater launch.

You could just use a floatation collar to get it to the surface. It breaks
off using explosive bolts.
>
>Hey, Jon, could you launch one of the these using the same technique as used
>to launch missiles from boomers today ?!?

Those are launched up and away from the boomer with compressed air to get
it away from the boat. Then the rocket engine launches to get it up to its
trajectory. And the rockets get it up by using its own oxidizer, so it
doesn't care if its underwater;)

Sommers
"Wow I posted a lot today..."
Message no. 54
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 15:18:45 EDT
In a message dated 7/22/98 9:08:35 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.COM writes:

> On Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:28:20 EDT Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM> writes:
> >In a message dated 7/22/98 8:09:53 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
> >dghost@****.COM writes:
> >> Also, don't forget that missiles/rockets aren't armed until they are
> >> ready to be fired ... I understand you had a bad experience with
> extern
> >> fuel mounts ... or was that someone else?
>
> >Yes, and just because the missile / rocket / bomb is not armed does not
> mean
> >that the explosive ordinance can't be set off ... ever heard of a sniper
> >shooting a tank and hitting the ammo storage box ... the tank does not
> look to
> >be in very good shape after the explosion.
>
> Well, that's different ... I could be wrong but, but as I understand it,
> when a missile/rocket is not armed, the warhead is actually fairly
> involitile ... Though how this can be achieved easily, I can't see so I'm
> probably wrong ... :)

Yep ... something hits a missile .... two things are explosive .. the warhead
and the payload of fuel in it.

> >> Also, I just realized that bit about 1.5 times normal weapon mounts
> for
> >> milspec vehicles ... actually gives room for a underbelly Mini-turret
> >> perhaps with an AVM/AVR or a vindicator Minigun ...the problem is the
> CF
> >> requirement ...
>
> >LOL on finding more space then ...
>
> Actually, this is the first vehicle I designed where I had excessive
> amounts of Load remaining and little or no CF ... then again, this is
> also the first milspec vehicle I desgned ... My favorite though is still
> my rigger's puppy drone ... he controls it with a cranial RCD ... I wish
> I could of have mounted a Str 2 mechanical arm on the bugger for the head
> but the best the load would allow was Str 1 ... :/

Ah ... on the topic of arms, reminds me of the Hopper (Chopper using a VT
engine rather than a rotorcraft engine) with a pair of mechanical arms on the
front. Called the both moustaches with a Strength of 25 each.

> >-Herc
> >------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
> >------------- Who would not mind posting Beauty, but K says not to. You
> all
> >would have a problem with her.
>
> Not I. :P

Then I'll send you something privately over the course of the next couple of
days then.

-Herc
------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
Message no. 55
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 15:21:04 EDT
In a message dated 7/22/98 9:09:04 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.COM writes:

> the
> >vents are reopened and by the time water is beginning to go up the
> vents, the
> >thrust will begin to push away at the water, and push it out of the
> vents.
> >The panzer can then perform a VTOL launch maneuver.
>
> That gives me an idea ... why not try and combine a hovercraft and LAV in
> one? For most intents and purposes it would be redundant and a waste but
> if you have your heart set on the above, you could try something like
> that ... the hovercraft doesn't need to go anywhere so it can be
> underpowered ... it just needs to be able to get the LAV out of the water
> and since AFAIK, hovercrafts use fan-type thingies (technical term ;) for
> this, being in or partially in the water won't be a problem ...

Are you talking about adding a hovercraft chassis onto the panzer, which can
then be discarded ?!? Or a separate vehicle which could allow the panzer to
come out of the water before the panzer could launch ?!?

-Herc
------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
Message no. 56
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 15:28:59 EDT
In a message dated 7/22/98 12:38:40 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
mmanhardt@*****.NET writes:

> > Well, that's different ... I could be wrong but, but as I understand it,
> > when a missile/rocket is not armed, the warhead is actually fairly
> > involitile ... Though how this can be achieved easily, I can't see so I'm
> > probably wrong ... :)
>
> The same way explosives are involitile until primed. Military grade
> explosives are extremely hard to set off without preperation. I've
> cooked by burning C-4 before. Its the blasting cap that is volitile,
> and they are usually as protected as possible (and extremely
> small.)

Ah, but did you ever use some sort of blow to it ... didn't think so ... the
pressure wave from the explosion could set it off if the the explosion from
the incoming missile is close enough.

-Herc
-------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
Message no. 57
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 15:33:19 EDT
In a message dated 7/22/98 1:07:23 PM US Eastern Standard Time, erikj@****.COM
writes:

> As Sommers mentioned, trying to supply jet engines with adequate air from a
> snorkel would be nigh unto impossible.
>
> But the concept of carrier sub launched LAVs is quite interesting; highly
> specialized and certainly quite rare, but here's some other thoughts on
> launching the LAVs...
>
> Why not simply let the LAV float to the surface in a disposable raft sort
> of thing? The carrier sub opens it's special underwater launch bay, then
> the LAVs float to the surface, where they then fire up the engines and
> rocket way. This procedure would probably trash the disposable raft too,
> making it harder to find traces of it.

Hmmm .. a disposable raft ... I like it .. much more feasible than launching
it via VLS.

> Or along a similar vein, why not use a whole other vehicle to bring the LAV
> to the surface, a custodian or chaperone mini-sub that takes the LAV from
> the carrier sub to the surface. Reusable.

That is also an idea ... though there is another idea ... the Hastings itself
can't come to the surface ... so she gets as close as she can and then raises
a portion of the flight deck ... or the elevator is the part which can rise
above the water, thereby allowing the panzer to take off normally (VTOL).

> Or you could possibly launch a LAV from the carrier much like a missile is
> launched from underwater. Fire it out of the carrier sub, where it's
> detachable and disposable launch rockets fire, giving it the power to get
> itself airborne just long enough for the LAV engines to fire and take over.

Hmmm, sounds like giving it a compressed air charge underneath itself.

> All of which obviously require full EnviroSeal and probably a level of
> Amphibious Operations to keep things sealed up nice and proper while
> underwater.

Yep .. otherwise <glug glug>

> And all of which allow the carrier sub to remain totally submerged.
>
> Reactions?

I liked the raft option the best ... cheap and something already available
kinda sorta.

-Herc
------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
Message no. 58
From: Sommers <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 15:35:58 -0400
At 03:12 PM 7/22/98 -0400, you wrote:
<snip Stuff>
>> The 16 inchers fire like 15 miles and take a few seconds to get there.
>> They
>> don't move much faster than a regular bullet, they're just faster. A
>> .45
>> slug goes about 950feet per second. That's about the speed of sound.
>> Rifle
>> bullets go faster, maybe 1200 fps (off the top of my head, I could be
>> off
>> by a bit). Rail guns measure their speeds in the multiple thousands of
>> fps.
>> Like 30-40000. These baby's MOVE! That's why their kinetic energy is
>> so
>> high, not the mass of the slug but the speed.
>>
> Problem is that escape velocity is only +/-11,000mph.
>You try to shoot something over the horizon at 35,000mph you'll go a
>hell of a lot further than 20km your going into orbit.
> This makes it a direct fire weapon only. Gonna piss off
>all the artillery guys who have been learning parabolic math for 4
>years.

If I did the math right, 1000 fps is about 620mph. So 30000 fps would be
.... wow about 18000 mph. They might go out at that. I'll have to check
what the speed is again, when I find those articles. But it is a dirct fire
weapon, the boys at JPL have only tested it at shorter ranges so far (as
far as we know...). I guess you might even have a range limitation of earth
curvature. Wow!

>> You don't need a lot of power for a railgun, you just need a few
>> bursts of
>> a lot of power. Big difference. So most railguns designs that I've
>> seen are
>> either fixed and attached to big power supplies or use high
>> capacity/quick
>> discharge capacitors that are used kind of like rounds in a regular
>> gun.
>> Once its used you eject it, and maybe charge it again later.
>>
> But the more power available, the more OFTEN you can
>fire. A trickle charge is great for a few test shots, in combat that
>baby's gonna be sucking some serious juice.

The concepts I've seen aren't trickle, they're squirt. You charge a
capacitor from a generator. The gun has to ports, one to laod the slug, the
other to load a capacitor. Each shot uses one of each. The capacitor
unloads completelty for a shot, and then is replaced by a new one. So you
need the same number of slugs as disposable capacitors. Your ROF is as fast
as you can replace them. And I guess you could put them on a belt just like
regualar ammo.

When I go home tonight I'll see if I can find those articles.

Sommers
"Back to the library..."
Message no. 59
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 15:36:30 EDT
In a message dated 7/22/98 1:45:08 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
Mark@******.DEMON.CO.UK writes:

> > cool ... An interesting idea, btw: someone suggested using nature spirits
> > to conceal vehicles ... (I can't remember who though ... might have been
> > one of my players, someone on IRC, or someone on the list ...) ... of
> > course you have to be careful with magic in Aztlan ... damn fovae :)
> >
> Can be fun, force 10 air elementals and movement power are also
> rather fun, ever seen a chopper make Airwolf look slow :) on one of
> these i can just see it, theres a WHAT comming over the boarder at
> Mach 5!!!! touch expensive but.

We changed the Movement power here for spirits ... instead of increasing the
speed, they improved the fuel economy by a percentage (Force x 5%) ... this
made the power somewhat less powerful than when used on vehicles, but, we did
put in a loophole .. if the vehicle is also the personal domain of the spirit
with Movement power, then the Movement power works exactly as how stated in
the BBB and other sourcebooks.

-Herc
------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.

> (also rather likely to attract FAR more attention than you bargained
> for but).
>
> Unfortunately the underwater LAV's do as was pointed out have a
> serious 'water in the intakes' problem, though a suitably modified
> boomer could probably deliver a couple if you were prepared to
> surface the sub and wait for the deck to clear before you open the
> hatches. The result on military planners will be just to install more
> hydrophones to find the sub though :(
>
Message no. 60
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 15:38:07 EDT
In a message dated 7/22/98 1:14:43 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
Ereskanti@***.COM writes:

> > -Herc
> > ------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
> > ------------- Who would not mind posting Beauty, but K says not to. You
> all
> > would have a problem with her.
> >
> No, that is not what "K" said, I said to use lenience on these poor souls,
> they would probably snap in their shoes to behold that evidence of
> Powergaming...

Yeah, K, but the only way to show them Beauty is to hold very little back on
it.

Okay guys ... coming soon ... Beauty.

-Herc
------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
Message no. 61
From: bryan.covington@****.COM
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 15:45:40 -0400
> > But the more power available, the more OFTEN you can
> >fire. A trickle charge is great for a few test shots, in combat that
> >baby's gonna be sucking some serious juice.
>
> The concepts I've seen aren't trickle, they're squirt. You charge a
> capacitor from a generator. The gun has to ports, one to laod the
> slug, the
> other to load a capacitor. Each shot uses one of each. The capacitor
> unloads completelty for a shot, and then is replaced by a new one. So
> you
> need the same number of slugs as disposable capacitors. Your ROF is as
> fast
> as you can replace them. And I guess you could put them on a belt just
> like
> regualar ammo.
>
You just doubled your space requirements for ammo
though. If you hardwire the capacitors into the gun the you can have
twice as much ammo and just pull power from the nuke plant in the belly
of the ship/tank/plane(?). You might need to replace them every so often
but even 2 shots per capacitor would raise your ammo capacity by 25%.
I'm talking about 2050's railguns also, not today's. I think they could
make a capacitor capable of a few hundred shots at least.
OTOH if you want a man or truck portable weapon it seems
like the disposable capacitors might be the way to go. Still, its a lot
of crap to carry around, especially if it is gonna get thrown away.
Message no. 62
From: Sommers <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 15:59:23 -0400
At 03:45 PM 7/22/98 -0400, you wrote:


> You just doubled your space requirements for ammo
>though. If you hardwire the capacitors into the gun the you can have
>twice as much ammo and just pull power from the nuke plant in the belly
>of the ship/tank/plane(?). You might need to replace them every so often
>but even 2 shots per capacitor would raise your ammo capacity by 25%.
>I'm talking about 2050's railguns also, not today's. I think they could
>make a capacitor capable of a few hundred shots at least.
> OTOH if you want a man or truck portable weapon it seems
>like the disposable capacitors might be the way to go. Still, its a lot
>of crap to carry around, especially if it is gonna get thrown away.
>

Actually you wouldn't from the concepts I've seen. Remember that I've been
stressing that the slug is not very big at all, and it doesn't have the
propellant attached to it. So the slug itself would have an ammo space
about 1/3 to 1/2 of regular ammo, especially if they're perfect cylinders
(easier to stack).

The squirt discharge capacitors described are plastic sheets that are very
long in thin and then wrapped up into coils that become...about the same
size as the propellant part of a cartridge. So the ammo capacity was about
the same for a space about the same size.

I'm sure that you could play around with the amount of shots that you et
from each one but the idea was to keep them as small as possible so you
didn't need a large generator or big coils with the gun. Just discharge the
whole thing and drop it.

Its not that much more crap that gets carried around and thrown away from
conventional bullets:)

Sommers
"The technoman, at least until someone from JPL jumps in!"
Message no. 63
From: bryan.covington@****.COM
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 16:04:17 -0400
> > You just doubled your space requirements for ammo
> >though. If you hardwire the capacitors into the gun the you can have
> >twice as much ammo and just pull power from the nuke plant in the
> belly
> >of the ship/tank/plane(?). You might need to replace them every so
> often
> >but even 2 shots per capacitor would raise your ammo capacity by 25%.
> >I'm talking about 2050's railguns also, not today's. I think they
> could
> >make a capacitor capable of a few hundred shots at least.
> > OTOH if you want a man or truck portable weapon it
> seems
> >like the disposable capacitors might be the way to go. Still, its a
> lot
> >of crap to carry around, especially if it is gonna get thrown away.
> >
>
> Actually you wouldn't from the concepts I've seen. Remember that I've
> been
> stressing that the slug is not very big at all, and it doesn't have
> the
> propellant attached to it. So the slug itself would have an ammo space
> about 1/3 to 1/2 of regular ammo, especially if they're perfect
> cylinders
> (easier to stack).
>
> The squirt discharge capacitors described are plastic sheets that are
> very
> long in thin and then wrapped up into coils that become...about the
> same
> size as the propellant part of a cartridge. So the ammo capacity was
> about
> the same for a space about the same size.
>
> I'm sure that you could play around with the amount of shots that you
> et
> from each one but the idea was to keep them as small as possible so
> you
> didn't need a large generator or big coils with the gun. Just
> discharge the
> whole thing and drop it.
>
This is only really an issue if you have a weapon that
can be moved. If you have a gun that is an integral part of the vehicle
(like a tank turret or a ship's guns) there is no need *not* to have big
coils on the gun.

> Its not that much more crap that gets carried around and thrown away
> from
> conventional bullets:)
>
Yeah but I bet they cost more than a piece of cheap
brass. And remember caseless ammo is most likely more common in 205x
than it is today.
Message no. 64
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 22:17:14 +0100
Alfredo B Alves said on 10:04/22 Jul 98,...

> Still, I wouldn't want to be hit by a slug approaching half a foot
> accross ... How long would it be? a foot? a foot and a half? does
> railgun ammo spin? I assume it does since that helps with the accuracy
> in which case, it'd need to be long than it is wide and aerodynamic :)

I think railguns would use something similar to APFSDS -- a very
long, thin penetrator (in the order of 10:1 or 15:1
length:diameter ratio), so a 120 mm rail gun would fire
penetrators about 4 or 5 cm in diameter and 40 to 75 cm in
length. These would not spin, as that's where the FS (Fin
Stabilized) part comes in.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Sarcasm -- it's a great way to deal.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 65
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 22:17:15 +0100
Sommers said on 9:57/22 Jul 98,...

> OTOH, jet turbines need large amounts of air going through at a constant
> and fairly high rate in order to run their processes. Look at the jets on a
> 737 next time your at the airport. The jet for an LAV is smaller than that,
> although not by a huge amount. Now try to imagine that is going to be fed
> by a little snorkle. I don't have the figures off the top of my head, but
> you there is a LARGE amount of air mass that moves through a turbine every
> second.

This is also obvious in modern MBTs -- diesel-engined ones like
the T-72 carry much smaller-diameter snorkels (recognizable in
photos as a horizontal tube stowed on the back or side of the
turret) than the turbine-engined T-80. A snorkling LAV seems
very impractical to me.

> Either way I wouldn't recomend it though. There have been many documented
> cases of jets having sudden flameouts because they're flying through the
> rain and a solid sheet hits the engines for a second. You fight not be able
> to put out an engine with a firehose, but one bucket of water and the
> engine is off. Now think about an LAV right on the water, kicking up a lot
> of spray and sheets of water... <glub, glub>

I wouldn't say that _too_ fast if I were you. In the 1950s, Convair
in the US worked on an experimental jet-engined floatplane (the
only jet floatplane ever built; it never went into production) which
had its intakes located on top of the aircraft to keep them away
from the spray the plane was bound to kick up; AFAIK it worked
very well. A T-bird designed primarily for operations over water
would have a similar layout, I think.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Sarcasm -- it's a great way to deal.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 66
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 22:17:15 +0100
Sommers said on 11:24/22 Jul 98,...

> It really wouldn't be an effective weapon against things like tanks and
> ships, because of the lack of explosive power.

Modern APFSDS rounds for tank guns don't have an explosive
charge either, but they're the preferred anti-tank ammunition
because they penetrate so much armor, and bounce around inside
the target once through the armor. That is, unless the target is so
lightly armored that the penetrator enters on one side of the
target and exits on the other, in which case it might cause very
little real damage (apart from people getting caught in the
supersonic shockwave following right behind the round).

All AFAIK, of course.

> But aginst planes, and
> especially missiles, it would be great because its so fast moving it has
> the oppurtunity to hit better. In a plane or missile there are much more
> parts that are vital to control that could be damaged by a slug ripping
> through it. The target might not be destroyed, but damaged enough to be
> ineffective.

Lasers would be a very good anti-aircraft weapon, I have this
feeling, if tech is as far advanced as in SR. To hit the fast-moving
aircraft, all you need to do is have it in your sights and fire -- no
trouble with leading the target, aircraft flying between the shells,
and so on.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Sarcasm -- it's a great way to deal.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 67
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 22:17:15 +0100
Alfredo B Alves said on 8:03/22 Jul 98,...

> The way I read that was that the total weight of the ordinace determined
> the number of weapon mounts it consumed ... and that it DID count towards
> the limit of guns you can mount ... for every 1 firm point you stuff 300
> kgs of missiles onto the bugger regardless of the actual number of
> missile that means ... I can see how the text in R2 can go either way ...
> IMO, what I said makes more sense than being able to load up on guns and
> still room for a bunch of missiles ... I mean why couldn't you use that
> room for guns (CF permitting)?

The way I see external rocket mounts is as similar to aircraft
pylons -- if you read it that rocket mounts and hard/firmpoints
count against the same limit, then there is no way you can
recreate a modern jet fighter in Rigger 2, simply because you
can't add enough weapon mounts. However, if the two count
against separate limits, then it's a whole other ballgame...

Oh, and external rocket mounts don't use up CF, probably
because they're compleytely on the outside of the vehicle.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Sarcasm -- it's a great way to deal.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 68
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 16:24:36 -0400
At 01:37 PM 7/22/98 -0500, you wrote:

>>Why not simply let the LAV float to the surface in a disposable raft
>sort
>>of thing? The carrier sub opens it's special underwater launch bay,
>then
>>the LAVs float to the surface, where they then fire up the engines and
>>rocket way. This procedure would probably trash the disposable raft
>too,
>>making it harder to find traces of it.
>
>Raft would have to be durable enough to hang around long enough for the
>LAV to power up and get going ... other wise *glub glub* ... also,
>doesn't having a wet (from a trip to the surface) LAV cause problems?

Well, that's sort of obvious. If properly sealed up, which should be too
hard to do, I don't think it should be a problem. Perhaps the entire thing
is "Saran Wrapped" for the trip up to keep it totally dry?

>>Or you could possibly launch a LAV from the carrier much like a missile
>is
>>launched from underwater. Fire it out of the carrier sub, where it's
>>detachable and disposable launch rockets fire, giving it the power to
>get
>>itself airborne just long enough for the LAV engines to fire and take
>over.
>
>Uhm ... this is bad ... what if the engines don't power up? *splat!*

Well, obvious risk and one that would be addressed by anyone crazy enough
to actually attempt to implement this.

>>Reactions?
>>
>Not bad, but needs more work :)

Yeah, well, I'm not the mechanic of RN. I'm just the resident asshole pop
culture sex fiend. Or something like that. ;-)

Erik J.


http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/dungeon/480/index.html
The Reality Check for a Fictional World
Message no. 69
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 17:22:50 -0400
At 03:18 PM 7/22/98 -0400, you wrote:

>>And I still want a tech solution to the underwater launch.
>
>You could just use a floatation collar to get it to the surface. It breaks
>off using explosive bolts.

Sommers, would this be in any way similar to the concept I mentioned
earlier regarding a "raft" that would float the LAV upwards?

Erik J.


http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/dungeon/480/index.html
The Reality Check for a Fictional World
Message no. 70
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 02:37:54 EDT
In a message dated 7/22/1998 2:18:24 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU writes:

> >The other option, a magical one, which I hoped to avoid. Is a spell which
> >forces forces the water away from the panzer. A Wind spell could then
> begin
> >feeding air into the intakes, allowing the engines to come up to full
power,
>
> >and then the panzer takes off.
>
> That could work, although you have to get the mages there to do it. Maybe a
> hearth (vehicle) spirit that used Guard on the engines.
>
You guys are -SO- close here. It's a "Sea Spirit" to use it's guard on the
Panzer. In the games here, that means a Spirit whose force is equal to or
exceeding the Body rating of the vehicle itself.

-K
Message no. 71
From: Sommers <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 08:41:13 -0400
At 05:22 PM 7/22/98 -0400, you wrote:
>At 03:18 PM 7/22/98 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>>And I still want a tech solution to the underwater launch.
>>
>>You could just use a floatation collar to get it to the surface. It breaks
>>off using explosive bolts.
>
>Sommers, would this be in any way similar to the concept I mentioned
>earlier regarding a "raft" that would float the LAV upwards?
>

Sorry, must have missed that part. Although the concept I was thinking of
was more several floatation balloons, for lack of a better term, that could
be quickly detached from the hull with explosive bolts. That would be much
quicker than keeping it on a full raft, which would vital in combat
situations.

Call it a refinement?

>Erik J.
>
>
>http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/dungeon/480/index.html
>The Reality Check for a Fictional World

Sommers
"Always working to get it that little bit better"
Message no. 72
From: "Mark J. Steedman" <Mark@******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 14:02:50 +0000
Mike Bobroff writes

>
> And I still want a tech solution to the underwater launch.
>
> Hey, Jon, could you launch one of the these using the same technique as used
> to launch missiles from boomers today ?!?
>
I doubt that it would work well with something as big as a LAV, never
mind the effect of such explosive acceleration on the crew. I don't
know what the acceleration rates are like for this but i suspect
nasty, not such a problem for a missile with next to no moving parts
but a big time problem for people and people compatible systems. Also
the force on the launching sub would become a problem, ICBM's are
heavy but fairly streamlined, throwing a tank out the top like this
could easy break the sub in two, sure it could be strengthened enough
but i doubt its worth it, mush easier just to fling a salvo of criuse
missiles out instead and be done with it.

Mark
Message no. 73
From: "Ubiratan P. Alberton" <ubiratan@**.HOMESHOPPING.COM.BR>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 17:00:50 -0300
At 06:38 22/07/98 EDT, you wrote:
>
>> Querry: Is a railgun considered a Anti-vehicle and/or armor piercing?
>
>Nope, you have to get special rounds for it the rounds to be considered APDS.

I think it should, though... I heard comments about a railgun that's
being developed today, and
it can go trough (IIRC) a 3 meter thick stell wall... That should be
anti-vehicle enough :) .

Bira
Message no. 74
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 01:47:08 -0500
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 15:21:04 EDT
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>

>In a message dated 7/22/98 9:09:04 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
>dghost@****.COM writes:
>> >the
>> >vents are reopened and by the time water is beginning to go up the
vents,
>> >the thrust will begin to push away at the water, and push it out of
the
>> >vents. The panzer can then perform a VTOL launch maneuver.

>> That gives me an idea ... why not try and combine a hovercraft and
LAV in
>> one? For most intents and purposes it would be redundant and a waste
but
>> if you have your heart set on the above, you could try something like
>> that ... the hovercraft doesn't need to go anywhere so it can be
>> underpowered ... it just needs to be able to get the LAV out of the
water
>> and since AFAIK, hovercrafts use fan-type thingies (technical term ;)
for
>> this, being in or partially in the water won't be a problem ...

>Are you talking about adding a hovercraft chassis onto the panzer, which
can
>then be discarded ?!? Or a separate vehicle which could allow the
panzer to
>come out of the water before the panzer could launch ?!?
>
>-Herc
>------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.

Actually I was suggesting adding a permanent Hovercraft chassis to it but
a discardable one might work too.

D. Ghost (Sorry for the long quote and a short reply but I'm replying to
message more than 2 weeks old :)
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
o/` Trideo killed the Video Star ... o/`

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 75
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 01:46:42 -0500
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 22:17:15 +0100
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>

>Alfredo B Alves said on 8:03/22 Jul 98,...
>> The way I read that was that the total weight of the ordinace
determined
>> the number of weapon mounts it consumed ... and that it DID count
towards
>> the limit of guns you can mount ... for every 1 firm point you stuff
300
>> kgs of missiles onto the bugger regardless of the actual number of
>> missile that means ... I can see how the text in R2 can go either way
...
>> IMO, what I said makes more sense than being able to load up on guns
and
>> still room for a bunch of missiles ... I mean why couldn't you use
that
>> room for guns (CF permitting)?

>The way I see external rocket mounts is as similar to aircraft
>pylons -- if you read it that rocket mounts and hard/firmpoints
>count against the same limit, then there is no way you can
>recreate a modern jet fighter in Rigger 2, simply because you
>can't add enough weapon mounts. However, if the two count
>against separate limits, then it's a whole other ballgame...

Can't make modern jet fighters even if give them 1.5 times their body for
firmpoints (hardpoints using up two firmpoints)? I haven't checked but
the milspec vehicles in the back of R2 used this to get all those weapons
...

>Oh, and external rocket mounts don't use up CF, probably
>because they're compleytely on the outside of the vehicle.
>
>--
>Gurth@******.nl -
<SNIP>

No ... I meant why couldn't you decide not to mount missiles, instead
mounting more guns. I said "CF permitting" because even external weapon
mounts use CF ... I think. Maybe a Pintle mount doesn't. I'll have to
check. :)

D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
o/` Trideo killed the Video Star ... o/`

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Second Version (Finalized?) of the Stonewall Stats, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

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

Thwap!