Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 01:37:02 -0400
Once upon a time, Erik Jameson wrote;

>Kitty Hawk was where a couple of brothers from Dayton, Ohio tested out
>their first airplane many decades ago. Old news, totally irrelevant.

It was a quick example. If I had the time or need to prove what has
been invented/developed in the South wouldn't mean too much for people.
The localities of the origins of items don't mean much to people in
general. Who but the South cares that Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola started
here. The Bojangles chain started here (the original building has since
been torn down and a new building has been erected in its place). My
interests are more pop cultures so the technological issue I would have
to look up but I know far better to say nothing has been done here!

>Let's look at a few things here. The South is not a known industrial or
>research region. It's known for stuff like cotton, Florida retirement
>homes and Mardi Gras in New Orleans. It's not and has never been seen as a
>major industrial powerhouse. Agriculture is what the world sees coming out
>of the South.

What the world sees coming out of the South doesn't mean it doesn't
exist. North Carolina has the Research Triangle with numerous facilities
in all fields there. Don't start viewing things as just a perception
issue, we might as well go straight into name calling then.

>The North on the other hand has always had the factories and the industrial
>strength and know-how. Hell, in the Civil War the South had more troops,
>but the North was able to supply their troops better and more consistently.

The earlier Civil War had the South soundly beating the North at
something like 1 to 6 (one Southerner to the North's six). After these
initial results a lot of the Southern soldiers decided the war could
easily be won and went back to their homes. Then the tides turned.

>Project that same sort of perception/reality into 205X Shadowrun. It still
>works.

I seem to recall FASA's policy of _natives_ writing about their
homes not outsiders to avoid such idiotic generalizations like these. So
California should be nothing but surfers and Japanese Corps?

>The CAS received more soldiers, toys and bases in the secession. But the
>UCAS kept the more advanced toys and had a megacorp backing it, in it's
>backyard (Ares). It also was far better able to handle the secession from
>a economic/political standpoint. The CAS had to build a federal government
>from scratch. That's consuming in both time and money. The UCAS had all
>it's systems in place, it just lost a chunk of land and tax revenue.

The political parties were formed from the same basis. UCAS had to
handle as well as losing the resources from the South. The UCAS was only
4 years into its merger so I doubt it was that further ahead than CAS on
being stable especially since they had to restructure the loss of the
South from its government. The advance toy issue was based on locality on
where it stayed. The UCAS couldn't pull that equipment out of the South.

>So I really don't honestly think it was an insult to the South nor
>unrealistic for FASA to have portrayed it as it has, Southern patriotism
>aside (speaking of which, I didn't think you had any Johnny Reb in you
>MC23; I thought you more advanced than that, no insult intended).

When somebody basically says you can't have something because we
feel you are a hick, you are going to be mighty pissed off. In fact up
until that post FASA wasn't treating the South as a hick locality. That's
a huge slap in the face.
As far as Southern Pride goes, that has come with age. My mother was
from New Bedford and three quarters of my ancestry can be traced out of
the country within 3 generations so until recently I never considered my
self a Southerner. My family name although can be traced as far back as
1776 on a census in Virginia. After 29 years of life I can say this is my
home so I can't deny being a Southerner any more.

>And personally, I find it far more amazing that the CAS was able to pull
>off that massive disinformation campaign than if they had actually built
>the Stonewall. Keeping something secret in an Information Age for the
>better part of a decade? That's impressive. What else have they kept
>secret?

I'm not accepting that answer. Mike still has time to reconsider his
earlier overly rash decision on the status of the Stonewall.

-MC23, who has grown far too disgusted with FASA's concentration on the
North-

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 2
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 15:46:41 +1000
MC23 writes:
> When somebody basically says you can't have something because we
> feel you are a hick, you are going to be mighty pissed off. In fact up
> until that post FASA wasn't treating the South as a hick locality. That's
> a huge slap in the face.

I dunno... I can't see any problem with the CAS not being right at the top
of the SOTA curve. I wouldn't think ANY government would be right at the top
of the SOTA curve in many cases. Governments in SR seem to be a lot less
powerful than modern governments, with the corps holding the technology
edge. Furthermore, the corps have more reason to desire it... fewer
personal, but lots more cash, means that they would want the tech edge a lot
more than governments would (not to mention most corporate clashes involve
regiment-sized groups at best).

As a result of this, expecting a government to be right at the top of the
SOTA curve is silly. As an example: who has the world's best fighter plane
technology? The US government? Or the corps that do the R&D under contract
to the US? Then take your answer and re-examine it in the context of SR,
where the corp/government power ratio has changed drastically.

--
*************************************************************************
* .--_ # "My opinions may have changed, but not the fact *
* _-0(#)) # that I'm right." -- Old Fortune Saying *
* @__ )/ # *
* )=(===__==,= # Robert Watkins <---> robert.watkins@******.com *
* {}== \--==--`= # *
* ,_) \ # "A friend is someone who watches the same *
* L_===__)=, # TV programs as you" *
*************************************************************************
Message no. 3
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 15:54:19 +1000
> -MC23, who has grown far too disgusted with FASA's concentration on the
> North-

I would suggest dealing with it, MC... SR's game universe revolves under
Seattle, mainly, and the UCAS as an extension. Personally (speaking as
someone who is STILL waiting to see the promised Aussie sourcebook), I would
like to see a CAS sourcebook come out, similar to the NAN ones and Cal Free
State, but I wouldn't call it a huge issue.

Oh, and tech research projects fail all the time... that's why they're
research projects. Big cutting edge projects often fall over, even when
they're close to success (mind you, that's usually 'cause they get
proxmired, aka snatching defeat from the jaws of victory).

--
Duct tape is like the Force: There's a Light side, a Dark side, and it binds
the Universe together.
Robert Watkins -- robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 4
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 03:28:44 EDT
In a message dated 7/16/98 12:37:17 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
mc23@**********.COM writes:

<snipped 'the Rant'>

> I'm not accepting that answer. Mike still has time to reconsider his
> earlier overly rash decision on the status of the Stonewall.
>
> -MC23, who has grown far too disgusted with FASA's concentration on the
> North-
>
Wow, I must say I am impressed. I however, in all honesty, find that I have
to agree with MC here. Granted, -My- definition of "the South" is not MC's,
or probably FASA's for that matter.

I do know however of the educational status of most southern states, as well
as the technological developmentation that is -publicly- mediasized about "the
South".

As for me personally, I believe the Stonewall MBT would have existed, and
should for many reasons. IMHO, without that level of technology, a conflict
between the CAS and Aztlan would end in the CAS being utterly run over.

The stats for the borders in Target: Smuggler's Haven is a good comparison of
this fact. But I really do believe that the CAS has sharp-as-hell technology
in SR, enough to warrant a really good throw-down, should one ever occur
within the "Canon Game".

-K
Message no. 5
From: bryan.covington@****.COM
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 09:25:22 -0400
> >Kitty Hawk was where a couple of brothers from Dayton, Ohio tested
> out
> >their first airplane many decades ago. Old news, totally irrelevant.
>
Ahem, THE first powered airplane.

> >Let's look at a few things here. The South is not a known industrial
> or
> >research region. It's known for stuff like cotton, Florida
> retirement
> >homes and Mardi Gras in New Orleans. It's not and has never been
> seen as a
> >major industrial powerhouse. Agriculture is what the world sees
> coming out
> >of the South.
>
> What the world sees coming out of the South doesn't mean it
> doesn't
> exist. North Carolina has the Research Triangle with numerous
> facilities
> in all fields there. Don't start viewing things as just a perception
> issue, we might as well go straight into name calling then.
>
Being a fellow southerner (and MC's GM) I'm gonna have
to back him up on this. The south has a lot more to it than most people
think. On this one issue I think MC is vastly understating the point.
RTP (Research Triangle Park) is one of the single most well respected
centers of technological development in the country is not the world. If
you don't agree go ask a local engineering professor.

> >The North on the other hand has always had the factories and the
> industrial
> >strength and know-how. Hell, in the Civil War the South had more
> troops,
> >but the North was able to supply their troops better and more
> consistently.

This is patently untrue. The Union had FAR more troops
along the lines of 6 to 1. The Rebel forces used their troops much more
effectively while the Union just overwhelmed the south with numbers.
Being born in New York and raised in Charlotte I found the civil war
rather interesting.

> The earlier Civil War had the South soundly beating the North at
> something like 1 to 6 (one Southerner to the North's six). After these
> initial results a lot of the Southern soldiers decided the war could
> easily be won and went back to their homes. Then the tides turned.
>
> >Project that same sort of perception/reality into 205X Shadowrun. It
> still
> >works.
>
> I seem to recall FASA's policy of _natives_ writing about their
> homes not outsiders to avoid such idiotic generalizations like these.
> So
> California should be nothing but surfers and Japanese Corps?
>
HERE HERE!

> >The CAS received more soldiers, toys and bases in the secession. But
> the
> >UCAS kept the more advanced toys and had a megacorp backing it, in
> it's
> >backyard (Ares). It also was far better able to handle the secession
> from
> >a economic/political standpoint. The CAS had to build a federal
> government
> >from scratch. That's consuming in both time and money. The UCAS had
> all
> >it's systems in place, it just lost a chunk of land and tax revenue.
>
> The political parties were formed from the same basis. UCAS had
> to
> handle as well as losing the resources from the South. The UCAS was
> only
> 4 years into its merger so I doubt it was that further ahead than CAS
> on
> being stable especially since they had to restructure the loss of the
> South from its government. The advance toy issue was based on locality
> on
> where it stayed. The UCAS couldn't pull that equipment out of the
> South.
>
Also remember the area covered by the UCAS has far fewer
military installations than the south or the western states. The primary
military training bases are in North and South Carolina (Fort Bragg
[largest US army base] and Paris Island [marine training base]). As well
as lots of air bases. I personally think the southern forces would do
just fine militarily.

> >So I really don't honestly think it was an insult to the South nor
> >unrealistic for FASA to have portrayed it as it has, Southern
> patriotism
> >aside (speaking of which, I didn't think you had any Johnny Reb in
> you
> >MC23; I thought you more advanced than that, no insult intended).
>
> When somebody basically says you can't have something because we
> feel you are a hick, you are going to be mighty pissed off. In fact up
> until that post FASA wasn't treating the South as a hick locality.
> That's
> a huge slap in the face.
>
Very true.

<snip MC's personal history>
Message no. 6
From: Jon Szeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 12:44:21 EDT
<ka-snip>

Okay. Time out. Let's get back to the original point of contention, the
retconning of the Stonewall. The reason that Mike and I killed the Stonewall
has nothing to do with our (individual) perceptions of either the South or the
CAS.

As far as why Mike's hates the Stonewall, you'll have to ask him. I dislike
the Stonewall for two reasons: one, it violates my engineering and tactical
senses of credibility. <shameless plug> Those of you who have T:SH have read
my beliefs about vector-thrust technology. </shameless plug> IMO, providing
both the lift and thrust to propel a battle tank (weighing no less than 45
metric tons, at the minimum) is beyond the capabilities of vector thrust
technology, either in 2052 or 2060. Also, when you add into consideration the
massive power and energy requirements required to operate the rail gun and
pulse laser (to borrow the term from another FASA game line), to meet the
total power requirements you would need a tabletop nuclear reactor, which I
can't believe would exist within the next 60 years.

From a tactical point of view, has anyone thought about the logistical burden
a flying tank would put on a fighting force? The tooth-to-tail ratio of an
ordinary heavy division (armored or mech. infantry) is already pretty onerous
as it is. And I'm sure anyone with any experience in aircraft maintenance
would agree that flying machines are notoriously finicky, compared to ground
vehicles. In terms of optempo and CSS, I'll take a wing of loaded A-10s over a
company of Stonewalls or LAVs any day.

The second reason I dislike the Stonewall is because it seems to be pushing
the edge of game balance. Think about it: this is a fragging TANK (and a
flying one at that) we're talking about here. The only thing that (reliably)
kills a tank is another tank. A PC team with a tank is nigh invulnerable, and
PCs that end up facing a tank are simply going to die. The bottom line is,
IMO, including a tank in a game (unless you're playing OGRE, BattleTech,
Mekton Zeta or something like those) is playing with fire, and it skirts the
borders of munchkinism/Monty Haul syndrome/powergaming.

FWIW, I too am troubled by the lack of attention paid to the CAS in Shadowrun
products. (Something I may hope to remedy in the future --- don't ask me just
yet, I'm still thinking it through.) I do think that the South, in the 20th
and 21st century, is as technologically capable a region as any other part of
the US, and I also think there's more to the CAS secession than stereotypical
North-South culture clash.

But the claim that the nixing of the Stonewall is an indication of "Southern
discrimination" by FASA is patently untrue. There may be other arguments that
would support this claim, but this just ain't one of them.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled rant.

-- Jon
Message no. 7
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 13:56:13 -0400
At 12:44 PM 7/16/98 EDT, you wrote:

>As far as why Mike's hates the Stonewall, you'll have to ask him. I dislike
>the Stonewall for two reasons: one, it violates my engineering and tactical
>senses of credibility. <shameless plug> Those of you who have T:SH have read
>my beliefs about vector-thrust technology. </shameless plug> IMO, providing
>both the lift and thrust to propel a battle tank (weighing no less than 45
>metric tons, at the minimum) is beyond the capabilities of vector thrust
>technology, either in 2052 or 2060. Also, when you add into consideration the
>massive power and energy requirements required to operate the rail gun and
>pulse laser (to borrow the term from another FASA game line), to meet the
>total power requirements you would need a tabletop nuclear reactor, which I
>can't believe would exist within the next 60 years.

That sounds about right to this layman. SR Tech is pretty advanced, but
the Stonewall would require tech that does appear to be beyond SOTA in
2060, at least by canon.

The Azzie railgun isn't LAV-mounted normally, is it? From what I've heard
and read, it appears to be somewhat underpowered from what people think a
*real* railgun would be like.

>The second reason I dislike the Stonewall is because it seems to be pushing
>the edge of game balance.

True. It's never appeared in any game I've ever been a part of. Very few
milspec vehicles have every seen the light of day in any game I've played
or GMed actually. And we were smart enough to run like hell when they did.

>FWIW, I too am troubled by the lack of attention paid to the CAS in Shadowrun
>products. (Something I may hope to remedy in the future --- don't ask me just
>yet, I'm still thinking it through.) I do think that the South, in the 20th
>and 21st century, is as technologically capable a region as any other part of
>the US, and I also think there's more to the CAS secession than stereotypical
>North-South culture clash.

Well, perception does dictate reality. And SR is a world where perception
is extremely powerful. I'm sure some folks think I'm smashing the South,
but I'm not. I do have a problem with Johnny Reb-types, but the South as a
whole? No. FASA itself says that the CAS is an impressive military power.
I see no reason to disagree.

>We now return you to your regularly scheduled rant.

Heh. I'm just hoping we can avoid anymore hardback rants...

Erik J.


http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/dungeon/480/index.html
The Reality Check for a Fictional World
Message no. 8
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 12:16:28 -0600
Erik Jameson wrote:
/
/ At 12:44 PM 7/16/98 EDT, you wrote:
/
/ >As far as why Mike's hates the Stonewall, you'll have to ask him. I dislike
/ >the Stonewall for two reasons: one, it violates my engineering and tactical
/ >senses of credibility. <shameless plug> Those of you who have T:SH have read
/ >my beliefs about vector-thrust technology. </shameless plug> IMO, providing
/ >both the lift and thrust to propel a battle tank (weighing no less than 45
/ >metric tons, at the minimum) is beyond the capabilities of vector thrust
/ >technology, either in 2052 or 2060. Also, when you add into consideration the
/ >massive power and energy requirements required to operate the rail gun and
/ >pulse laser (to borrow the term from another FASA game line), to meet the
/ >total power requirements you would need a tabletop nuclear reactor, which I
/ >can't believe would exist within the next 60 years.
/
/ That sounds about right to this layman. SR Tech is pretty advanced, but
/ the Stonewall would require tech that does appear to be beyond SOTA in
/ 2060, at least by canon.

I don't even see how they can get the banshee up off the ground
<shrug>. And I put in three years towards a professional pilot degree
that involved a fair ammount of physics.

Even a table top nuclear reactor wouldn't get you the power you need.
A reactor is just a furnace used to drive a steam turbine, which
produces electricity. The advantage of a nuclear reactor is that you
get a lot of energy out of a small mass. But even with a table top
reactor, the size of the turbine is still limited by the size of the
vehicle. It works on subs and battleships because subs and battleships
are huge and have the space for large turbines. On a tank the turbine
would be pretty small. To get the energy required you'd have to spin
it at an outrageous speed to drive the electric motors powering the
fans to keep the tank in the air, and that would slag any electric
turbine you can build today. And I don't think they could do it in SR
205x.

-David
--
"If I told you, then I'd have to pull a Shadowrun against you. Sorry."
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 9
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 13:47:26 -0500
On Thu, 16 Jul 1998 12:44:21 EDT Jon Szeto <JonSzeto@***.COM> writes:
><ka-snip>
>Okay. Time out. Let's get back to the original point of contention, the
>retconning of the Stonewall. The reason that Mike and I killed the
Stonewall
>has nothing to do with our (individual) perceptions of either the South
or the
>CAS.

Glad to hear it :)

>As far as why Mike's hates the Stonewall, you'll have to ask him. I
dislike
>the Stonewall for two reasons: one, it violates my engineering and
tactical
>senses of credibility. <shameless plug> Those of you who have T:SH have
read
>my beliefs about vector-thrust technology. </shameless plug> IMO,
providing
>both the lift and thrust to propel a battle tank (weighing no less than
45
>metric tons, at the minimum) is beyond the capabilities of vector thrust
>technology, either in 2052 or 2060.

Well, there is a Swiss MBT that weighs in at less than 20 Tonnes, which
falls into the LAV range ... However How would replacing the normal Tank
treads with a LAV propulsion system affect things? If the Banshee could
be considered a flying APC or converted to one easily, it would seem that
it lowers the weight (and durability as well) by 1 to 2 body points
(Wheeled APC is body 7 while a tracked APC is body 8) ... Judging from
the R2 stats, the Banshee *out performs* the APCs, having a higher armor
rating, higher soeed rating, more cargo space with the drawbacks of a
lower body (and thus fewr hardpoints), less load, and monstrous price tag
... IMO a LAV MBT is feasible but it won't be simply a flying tank ...
it's effectiveness would be significantly reduced (but not so much to
make the "tank" useless) and would not be cost effective ...

>Also, when you add into consideration the
>massive power and energy requirements required to operate the rail gun
and
>pulse laser (to borrow the term from another FASA game line), to meet
the
>total power requirements you would need a tabletop nuclear reactor,
which I
>can't believe would exist within the next 60 years.

I agree.

>>From a tactical point of view, has anyone thought about the logistical
burden
>a flying tank would put on a fighting force? The tooth-to-tail ratio of
an
>ordinary heavy division (armored or mech. infantry) is already pretty
onerous
>as it is. And I'm sure anyone with any experience in aircraft
maintenance
>would agree that flying machines are notoriously finicky, compared to
ground
>vehicles. In terms of optempo and CSS, I'll take a wing of loaded A-10s
over a
>company of Stonewalls or LAVs any day.

I have no idea what a "tooth-to-tail ratio" is but I get the jist of it
... hmmm ... this gives me another thought though, what has taken the
place of the A-10's in 205x?

>The second reason I dislike the Stonewall is because it seems to be
pushing
>the edge of game balance. Think about it: this is a fragging TANK (and a
>flying one at that) we're talking about here. The only thing that
(reliably)
>kills a tank is another tank. A PC team with a tank is nigh
invulnerable, and
>PCs that end up facing a tank are simply going to die. The bottom line
is,
>IMO, including a tank in a game (unless you're playing OGRE, BattleTech,
>Mekton Zeta or something like those) is playing with fire, and it skirts
the
>borders of munchkinism/Monty Haul syndrome/powergaming.

Well, under normal circumstances the PCs should not have access to a MBT
but abnormal circumstances do arise ... like what if after 7 years of
gaming, you find yourself in a war against Aztlan? ;) I'm not saying that
FASA should publish a handful of MBT stats ... but there is nothing wrong
with saying something like Stonewall exists (there are a few things to
take into account though that are scattered throughout the post, so
please read everything before disagreeing :). Now, any body who manages
to acquire a MBT (or stonewall or whatever) and drives it to meet his/her
Johnson DESERVES what he/she gets ... :)

>FWIW, I too am troubled by the lack of attention paid to the CAS in
Shadowrun
>products. (Something I may hope to remedy in the future --- don't ask me
just
>yet, I'm still thinking it through.) I do think that the South, in the
20th
>and 21st century, is as technologically capable a region as any other
part of
>the US, and I also think there's more to the CAS secession than
stereotypical
>North-South culture clash.

Glad to hear it! the CAS/UCAS split sounds WAY too much like "the south
will rise again" crap and I, for one would like to see material that
moves away from that ... (Is it just me, or does the CAS/UCAS history
seem a bit to much like a cut & paste from a history book with slight
modifications?)

>But the claim that the nixing of the Stonewall is an indication of
"Southern
>discrimination" by FASA is patently untrue. There may be other arguments
that
>would support this claim, but this just ain't one of them.
>
>We now return you to your regularly scheduled rant.
>
>-- Jon

Okay, when I said I was going to come up with Stonewall stats, I think I
had a better concept than the body 10 flying tank and you might actually
like it ... I'd love to hear everyone's opinion on it ... I've been a bit
busy and I'll probably make up these stats this weekend ...

First I was just going to try make MBT-esque vehicle from a LAV chasis
... and a true MBT using *checks book* uh-oh, no MBT chassis ... I'll
have to use Gurth's (I think it was Gurth's)... Gurth (or Whoever it
was), can you privately e-mail the finalized version of that chassis?

Then say that the Stonewall in the RBB was actually the result of
disinformation a little underhandedness :)... The LAV "tank" and the MBT
Stonewall were designed to look very similar (however any detailed
observation or side-by-side comparison will reveal the truth) so that
initial intelligence reports indicated that the CAS had developed a LAV
MBT ... The CAS could, of course, only keep this up for so long (if they
went to war, the illusion would end quickly :) but they made the most of
it while they could ...

What do you think? sounds reasonable?

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

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 10
From: The Bookworm <Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 13:54:25 -0500
On Thu, 16 Jul 1998, David Buehrer wrote:

> I don't even see how they can get the banshee up off the ground
> <shrug>. And I put in three years towards a professional pilot degree
> that involved a fair ammount of physics.
> Even a table top nuclear reactor wouldn't get you the power you need.
> A reactor is just a furnace used to drive a steam turbine, which
> produces electricity. The advantage of a nuclear reactor is that you
> get a lot of energy out of a small mass. But even with a table top
> reactor, the size of the turbine is still limited by the size of the
> vehicle. It works on subs and battleships because subs and battleships
> are huge and have the space for large turbines. On a tank the turbine
> would be pretty small. To get the energy required you'd have to spin
> it at an outrageous speed to drive the electric motors powering the
> fans to keep the tank in the air, and that would slag any electric
> turbine you can build today. And I don't think they could do it in SR
> 205x.

Hmmm. The Tabletop reactor puts out lots of heat. You were going to use
that to heat water to steam, use the steam to turn a turbine, and then use
energy from the turbin to drive a fan/compressor. Right? Now why cant you
just skip most of those steps and have the reactor super heat a reaction
mass and use that for trust with a small turbine/power unit running off it
to power the onboard systems. All the fuel bunkerage on the Banshee could
just be reaction mass. I do think your right in that we probably wont see
a table top fussion reacter in the next 60 years.

Anyone know the specs on the FISSION powered engine the US Airforce
developed back in the 50's/60's? I know they had a working model but they
never actualy flew it. As far as i know it just heated the incoming air
with hot air expanding and generating thrust.

Another tact on the Stonewall is that it is not a LAV. that part was all
disinformation. It WAS a hovercraft! This could give you fairly high
speeds over much terrein though not through everything. A conventionaly
powered hovercraft is much more feasable to me though im not shure how
great of an idea it is militarily. I guess im kindo of thinking of the
panzers from the Hammer's Slammers series by David Drake.

Thomas Price
aka The Bookworm
thomas.m.price@*******.edu
tmprice@***********.com
Message no. 11
From: Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 15:08:20 -0500
>
> On Thu, 16 Jul 1998, David Buehrer wrote:
>
> > I don't even see how they can get the banshee up off the ground
> > <shrug>. And I put in three years towards a professional pilot degree
> > that involved a fair ammount of physics.
> > Even a table top nuclear reactor wouldn't get you the power you need.
> > A reactor is just a furnace used to drive a steam turbine, which
> > produces electricity. The advantage of a nuclear reactor is that you
> > get a lot of energy out of a small mass. But even with a table top
> > reactor, the size of the turbine is still limited by the size of the
> > vehicle. It works on subs and battleships because subs and battleships
> > are huge and have the space for large turbines. On a tank the turbine
> > would be pretty small. To get the energy required you'd have to spin
> > it at an outrageous speed to drive the electric motors powering the
> > fans to keep the tank in the air, and that would slag any electric
> > turbine you can build today. And I don't think they could do it in SR
> > 205x.
>
> Hmmm. The Tabletop reactor puts out lots of heat. You were going to use
> that to heat water to steam, use the steam to turn a turbine, and then use
> energy from the turbin to drive a fan/compressor. Right? Now why cant you
> just skip most of those steps and have the reactor super heat a reaction
> mass and use that for trust with a small turbine/power unit running off it
> to power the onboard systems. All the fuel bunkerage on the Banshee could
> just be reaction mass. I do think your right in that we probably wont see
> a table top fussion reacter in the next 60 years.
>
> Anyone know the specs on the FISSION powered engine the US Airforce
> developed back in the 50's/60's? I know they had a working model but they
> never actualy flew it. As far as i know it just heated the incoming air
> with hot air expanding and generating thrust.
>
> Another tact on the Stonewall is that it is not a LAV. that part was all
> disinformation. It WAS a hovercraft! This could give you fairly high
> speeds over much terrein though not through everything. A conventionaly
> powered hovercraft is much more feasable to me though im not shure how
> great of an idea it is militarily. I guess im kindo of thinking of the
> panzers from the Hammer's Slammers series by David Drake.
>
Good series (Hammer's Slammers) even if I haven't read them all yet.
My .02 cents on the above topics. I too wish FASA would expand the CAS
somewhat. They've covered NAN, and the Tir, and Aztech. The main part
of North America left is the CAS. (Considering I've lived in Georgia, Alabama,
and Florida back and forth for the last 20 years, and I'm moving to Charlotte
NC shortly, I figure I qualify as a Southerner. :)).
The only info that I can remember was from the Guide to North America, and
its been out of print for ages. I don't see the South as being weak at all.
Example, look at the big areas hiring IT right now. Texas, Atlanta, NC, Chicago, and
California. (I'm sure there are arguements on this but...).
That is at least 3 of five that are in the CAS. Whether the Stonewall exists
or not is irrelevant. If the GM says it does, it does. If not..there are
plenty other toys to play with. :)
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker (850)644-4534 Systems Development
decker@****.fsu.edu http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~decker
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Morality is moral only when it is voluntary.
Message no. 12
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 15:47:44 EDT
In a message dated 7/16/98 11:45:13 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
JonSzeto@***.COM writes:

<yes, I snipped everything else>

> IMO, providing
> both the lift and thrust to propel a battle tank (weighing no less than 45
> metric tons, at the minimum) is beyond the capabilities of vector thrust
> technology, either in 2052 or 2060.

I have one question, a serious one. Exactly how heavy is a Harrier Jump
Jet???

-K
Message no. 13
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 16:12:01 EDT
In a message dated 7/16/98 1:53:41 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.COM writes:

> Glad to hear it! the CAS/UCAS split sounds WAY too much like "the south
> will rise again" crap and I, for one would like to see material that
> moves away from that ... (Is it just me, or does the CAS/UCAS history
> seem a bit to much like a cut & paste from a history book with slight
> modifications?)
>
You want the truth? It was...
-K
Message no. 14
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 16:19:10 EST
> > Glad to hear it! the CAS/UCAS split sounds WAY too much like "the south
> > will rise again" crap and I, for one would like to see material that
> > moves away from that ... (Is it just me, or does the CAS/UCAS history
> > seem a bit to much like a cut & paste from a history book with slight
> > modifications?)

I, for one, found the parts about Texas totally believable...

-=SwiftOne=-
(Any any true Texan would agree, except for the part where Texas
didn't win)
Message no. 15
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 14:46:06 -0600
The Bookworm wrote:
/
/ Anyone know the specs on the FISSION powered engine the US Airforce
/ developed back in the 50's/60's? I know they had a working model but they
/ never actualy flew it. As far as i know it just heated the incoming air
/ with hot air expanding and generating thrust.

Are you sure you're not talking about a scramjet?

-David
--
"If I told you, then I'd have to pull a Shadowrun against you. Sorry."
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 16
From: bryan.covington@****.COM
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 16:44:55 -0400
> > Glad to hear it! the CAS/UCAS split sounds WAY too much like "the
> south
> > will rise again" crap and I, for one would like to see material
> that
> > moves away from that ... (Is it just me, or does the CAS/UCAS
> history
> > seem a bit to much like a cut & paste from a history book with
> slight
> > modifications?)
> >
> You want the truth? It was...
>
>
I CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
Um....I mean...oh nevermind.
Message no. 17
From: The Bookworm <Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 16:17:06 -0500
On Thu, 16 Jul 1998, David Buehrer wrote:

> The Bookworm wrote:
> Are you sure you're not talking about a scramjet?

Yep! They were working on a nuclear powered bomber for supper long
range/endurence without having to rely on tanker suport. I think it was
in paralel with the nuclear rocket project at NASA. They got both to work
but then they realized it might not be a good idea to actualy fly the
stupid things. I mean military aircraft are designed to be in combat and
one WILL be shot down not to mention the regular accidents in training.
Do you really want to have U235 fuel rods spilling all over the place
everytime you lose a bomber?

Thomas Price
aka The Bookworm
thomas.m.price@*******.edu
tmprice@***********.com
Message no. 18
From: Geoff Skellams <geoff.skellams@*********.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 11:26:59 +1000
On Shadowrun Discussion, K is the Symbol[SMTP:Ereskanti@***.COM] wrote:
> In a message dated 7/16/98 11:45:13 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
> JonSzeto@***.COM writes:
>
> <yes, I snipped everything else>
>
> > IMO, providing
> > both the lift and thrust to propel a battle tank (weighing no less
than 45
> > metric tons, at the minimum) is beyond the capabilities of vector
thrust
> > technology, either in 2052 or 2060.
>
> I have one question, a serious one. Exactly how heavy is a Harrier
Jump
> Jet???

Well, I just went and did a quick web search and found the following
page at Boeing:

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/av8b/av8bspec.htm

It's for the AV8B Harrier II, and it lists the "Maximum TOGW" (which I
am assuming means Take-Off Ground Weight) to be 32000lbs. A quick
conversion yeilds that to be 14545.45kg (or there abouts). In round
figures, let's say it's 15000kg. That's WAY under the 45 tonnes (to use
the correct name) minimum for a MBT.

On a whim, I thought I would have a quick peek at the rest of the Boeing
miltary site and found out about the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). One of
the variants being looked at is a STOVL version to replace the Harriers
and F/A-18s of the USMC and the Sea Harriers of the Royal Navy.
Unfortunately, because it hasn't been built yet, there are no
real specifications on it. I would presume that it would have a greater
speed/range/payload that the Harrier (considering it is being touted as
a replacement for the F-16, A-6, AV-8B, F-14, F/A-18 and Sea Harrier,
and possibly the A-10) and it supposed to be a multi-role supersonic
figther. But seeings they are using all sorts of composite materials to
increase stealth capabilities and (I assume) to decrease weight, it
would also have a max take off weight of well under the 45 tonnes in
STOVL mode.

The UTL for the JSF is
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/jsf/jsf.htm

cheers
Geoff

--
Geoff Skellams R&D - Tower Software
Email Address: geoff.skellams@*********.com.au
Homepage: http://www.towersoft.com.au/staff/geoff/
ICQ Number: 2815165

"That rates about a 9.5 on my weird-shit-o-meter"
- Will Smith in "Men in Black"
Message no. 19
From: Whocares Mr_Nemo <vwookiee@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 20:27:00 PDT
Msg Thu, 16 Jul 1998 12:44:21 EDT By: JonSzeto@***.COM
<snip>
>And I'm sure anyone with any experience in aircraft maintenance
>would agree that flying machines are notoriously finicky, compared to
ground
>vehicles. In terms of optempo and CSS, I'll take a wing of loaded A-10s
over a
>company of Stonewalls or LAVs any day.

Absolutely true if ya ever see the maintance calls for the average jet
they get striped to frame evry few months & im only talking bout the
noncombat airtcraft here, takes about a 2-3wk full time work by a group
of personal numbering approx 20 and technology is gonly making it worse
as more wiring and smaller parts come on the market and into the
industry.

>The second reason I dislike the Stonewall is because it seems to be
pushing
>the edge of game balance. Think about it: this is a fragging TANK (and
a
>flying one at that) we're talking about here. The only thing that
(reliably)
>kills a tank is another tank. A PC team with a tank is nigh
invulnerable, and
>PCs that end up facing a tank are simply going to die. The bottom line
is,
>IMO, including a tank in a game (unless you're playing OGRE,
BattleTech,
>Mekton Zeta or something like those) is playing with fire, and it
skirts the
>borders of munchkinism/Monty Haul syndrome/powergaming.

Hell ive been bouncing the idea of a Merc based campeign (cant spell)
for a while but i really dont think its feasible namely its like trying
to run a Urbanbrawl match to many people and the weaponary way to high
fight/death ratio in my idea but it would be fun.

>FWIW, I too am troubled by the lack of attention paid to the CAS in
Shadowrun
>products.

Hell Ill be gald to see attention payed to the parts of the world like
asia, middle east and the pacific (in particlular Australia)



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 20
From: David Hinkley <dhinkley@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 21:19:53 +0000
> Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 12:44:21 EDT
> From: Jon Szeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
> Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )

[SNIP]
>
> >From a tactical point of view, has anyone thought about the logistical burden
> a flying tank would put on a fighting force? The tooth-to-tail ratio of an
> ordinary heavy division (armored or mech. infantry) is already pretty onerous
> as it is. And I'm sure anyone with any experience in aircraft maintenance
> would agree that flying machines are notoriously finicky, compared to ground
> vehicles. In terms of optempo and CSS, I'll take a wing of loaded A-10s over a
> company of Stonewalls or LAVs any day.

Good Point

>
> The second reason I dislike the Stonewall is because it seems to be pushing
> the edge of game balance. Think about it: this is a fragging TANK (and a
> flying one at that) we're talking about here. The only thing that (reliably)
> kills a tank is another tank. A PC team with a tank is nigh invulnerable, and
> PCs that end up facing a tank are simply going to die. The bottom line is,
> IMO, including a tank in a game (unless you're playing OGRE, BattleTech,
> Mekton Zeta or something like those) is playing with fire, and it skirts the
> borders of munchkinism/Monty Haul syndrome/powergaming.

I disagree about PCs with a tank, in a tactical sense they might be
invunerable, but in the long run acquiring the tank should rank high on their
list of major mistakes. Neither the Corps or the Local Government would
tolerate PCs using a tank. The PCs would be a target of a major man hunt, with
large rewards (dead or alive) for the tank and its "owners'. And with a large
enough reward the "shadows" are not very dark. And just asking for fuel or
ammuntion would attract major attention. I think it would make a good campaign
"hook". As to tank verses PC, that is not so cut and dried, it it is one on
one, a proper tank infanty team is another matter.

Stats on a "TANK" provide a needed contrast to the vehicle system even if the
tank is never "used" in the game.



David Hinkley
dhinkley@***.org
******************************************************
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve niether liberty or
safety.
Ben Franklin
Message no. 21
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 23:08:41 -0500
On Thu, 16 Jul 1998 15:47:44 EDT K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
writes:
>In a message dated 7/16/98 11:45:13 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
>JonSzeto@***.COM writes:

><yes, I snipped everything else>

>> IMO, providing
>> both the lift and thrust to propel a battle tank (weighing no less
than 45
>> metric tons, at the minimum) is beyond the capabilities of vector
thrust
>> technology, either in 2052 or 2060.

>I have one question, a serious one. Exactly how heavy is a Harrier Jump
>Jet???
>
>-K

>From _Jan'es_Aircraft_Recognition_guide_ (Thank's Jane ;):

BAe Sea Harrier F/A Mk 2 weighs over 6000 kg
BAe Sea Harrier FRS Mk 1/51 weighs over 6000 kg
BAe Sea Harrier GR Mk 7 weighs a little over 7000 kg

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

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 22
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 23:15:41 -0500
On Thu, 16 Jul 1998 16:19:10 EST Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU> writes:
>> > Glad to hear it! the CAS/UCAS split sounds WAY too much like "the
south
>> > will rise again" crap and I, for one would like to see material
that
>> > moves away from that ... (Is it just me, or does the CAS/UCAS
history
>> > seem a bit to much like a cut & paste from a history book with
slight
>> > modifications?)

>I, for one, found the parts about Texas totally believable...
>
>-=SwiftOne=-
>(Any any true Texan would agree, except for the part where Texas
>didn't win)

LOL actually ... Me and a friend (we're in Houston, TX) didn't like the
bit about Texas, embarrassed, reaplying for readmission into the
Unio--err--CAS ;) ... IMO, either Texas would have never left the CAS or
UCAS or would have made it on it's own ... perhaps rejoining one or
forming treaties to keep the Azzies at bay but not because it could hack
it on its own ...

D.Ghost (Who maybe should write a Texas Free State Book ... ;)
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)
"Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone"

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 23
From: Smilin' Ted <Tuvyah@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 01:21:42 EDT
In a message dated 7/16/98 7:27:49 PM, JonSzeto wrote:

>>FWIW, I too am troubled by the lack of attention paid to the CAS in
>Shadowrun
>>products.

I dunno. Maybe somebody made this point already, and I missed it -- can't read
everything in the datastream -- but...

I kind of like it that FASA hasn't charted and mapped the entire world. No
matter how independent the GM, having a sourcebook for every country, nation,
continent or city would generate a lot of pressure to conform adventures to
what's been laid down in print. This way, there's a looseness. There's still
terra incognita where anything can happen.

Smilin' Ted
Message no. 24
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 02:46:35 EDT
In a message dated 7/16/98 8:27:28 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
geoff.skellams@*********.COM.AU writes:

> It's for the AV8B Harrier II, and it lists the "Maximum TOGW" (which I
> am assuming means Take-Off Ground Weight) to be 32000lbs. A quick
> conversion yeilds that to be 14545.45kg (or there abouts). In round
> figures, let's say it's 15000kg. That's WAY under the 45 tonnes (to use
> the correct name) minimum for a MBT.
>
Okay, that's fine, it proved my point. In the book, a "Jump Jet" is a higher
Bod than a Banshee, which also translates into a higher weight category.
Everyone, even Jon, keeps skipping that part.

The -ONE- area that I am considering for a revamping of the MBT rules I have
here is that the armor and shell is -truly- 2052+ technology. And I even have
a bit of a reaching here to help.

There is also one more thing to consider. No where within the rules have the
concepts of "Multiple Power Plants" been fully flushed out. Let's face facts,
think of the modified 747 (or whatever that Jet is) is that carries the
shuttle from point A to point B. Now go for the load bearing rules, and you
will see where things just need a bit more tweaking/flushing out in order to
really get into the swing of things.

-K
Message no. 25
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 03:30:46 -0400
Once upon a time, K is the Symbol wrote;

>In a message dated 7/16/98 1:53:41 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
>dghost@****.COM writes:
>
>> Glad to hear it! the CAS/UCAS split sounds WAY too much like "the south
>> will rise again" crap and I, for one would like to see material that
>> moves away from that ... (Is it just me, or does the CAS/UCAS history
>> seem a bit to much like a cut & paste from a history book with slight
>> modifications?)
>>
>You want the truth? It was...

As I've said History repeats itself.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 26
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 03:20:31 -0500
On Fri, 17 Jul 1998 02:46:35 EDT K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
writes:
>In a message dated 7/16/98 8:27:28 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
>geoff.skellams@*********.COM.AU writes:
>> It's for the AV8B Harrier II, and it lists the "Maximum TOGW" (which I
>> am assuming means Take-Off Ground Weight) to be 32000lbs. A quick
>> conversion yeilds that to be 14545.45kg (or there abouts). In round
>> figures, let's say it's 15000kg. That's WAY under the 45 tonnes (to
use
>> the correct name) minimum for a MBT.

>Okay, that's fine, it proved my point. In the book, a "Jump Jet" is a
higher
>Bod than a Banshee, which also translates into a higher weight category.
>Everyone, even Jon, keeps skipping that part.

IIRC, not I, K ... I based my arguments off R2 vehicles not current
vehicles (I DID reference a RL vehicle but only as a counter to Jon
Szeto's :) Btw, modern fighters range from 6,069 kg (Mikoyan Mig-17
Fresco) to 36,741 kg (McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle) with a
majority in the 15 to 2x range (mostly under or around 20, it seemed to
me) which puts them at bodies of 6-7. This is of course based off of the
T/o Weights from _Jane's_Aircraft_Recognition_Guide_ (I only checked to
combat aircraft section of the guide and ignored bombers [which went
something like 30-200+ tons! 8-10+ bodies!])


>The -ONE- area that I am considering for a revamping of the MBT rules I
have
>here is that the armor and shell is -truly- 2052+ technology. And I
even have
>a bit of a reaching here to help.

I don't understand what you mean by this ... :)

>There is also one more thing to consider. No where within the rules
have the
>concepts of "Multiple Power Plants" been fully flushed out. Let's face
facts,
>think of the modified 747 (or whatever that Jet is) is that carries the
>shuttle from point A to point B. Now go for the load bearing rules, and
you
>will see where things just need a bit more tweaking/flushing out in
order to
>really get into the swing of things.
>
>-K

I think vehicles just need a way to make larger/smaller than average
vehicles ... Like Small/Medium/Large Jet fighter, Small/Medium/large Van,
etc ... Basically more chassis (what's the plural of chassis?) for
different sized vehicles ... because a lot of vehicles won't fall into
one body rating (ie, tanks, planes, and lots of others ...) ... Hmmm ...
you know, train, bus, and trolley Chassis would have been nice ... (For
those runners who have to use Public Transportation to get to the Johnson
... ;)

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

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 27
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 04:32:56 EDT
In a message dated 7/17/98 3:23:22 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.COM writes:

> I think vehicles just need a way to make larger/smaller than average
> vehicles ... Like Small/Medium/Large Jet fighter, Small/Medium/large Van,
> etc ... Basically more chassis (what's the plural of chassis?) for
> different sized vehicles ... because a lot of vehicles won't fall into
> one body rating (ie, tanks, planes, and lots of others ...) ... Hmmm ...
> you know, train, bus, and trolley Chassis would have been nice ... (For
> those runners who have to use Public Transportation to get to the Johnson
> ... ;)
>
I believe in all honesty that my roomie Mike has been hard at work on modified
chassis variations, mostly drones, but the concept(s) are not too bad.

As for the idea of "BIG" Bombers, no problem, just consider what kind of power
the power plants themselves are putting out, then move into the "Naval"
category for some of the stuff. Suddenly you get -BIG- and I mean every
capital letter of that. Imagine a Bomber with a Hull 1 (100+ tonnes) having 4
Airliner Power Plants for the Load proportions (speed is NOT effected in this
case). You could really design the things that exist today on that end of the
scale at least.

Something else Mike (roomie again) has discovered is that variant power plants
also could exist. for instance, what if an Airliner type power plant were
combined with a Vector Thrust Power Plant for a -BIG- tank (say, Bod of 8-10)
scale? suddenly the idea of power could exist, even if it does mean the rules
are being tweaked.

-K (who is just tweaking now for the sheer enjoyment of it all :)
Message no. 28
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 12:28:41 +0100
Alfredo B Alves said on 13:47/16 Jul 98,...

> Well, there is a Swiss MBT that weighs in at less than 20 Tonnes

No main battle tank in the world weighs 20 tons, let alone less.
All current MBTs weight 45 tons or more (NATO ones weigh a LOT
more). You're probably confusing it with a _light_ tank -- the
current Swiss MBT is the Leopard 2, at 55 tons. Their earlier
Panzer 68 weighs *checks book* 40 tons, but it's armor is almost
pathetic compared to modern MBTs (or even to those of its own
generation).

I've always looked at the GMC Banshee as something like the
American M2 and M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicles.

> which
> falls into the LAV range ... However How would replacing the normal Tank
> treads with a LAV propulsion system affect things? If the Banshee could
> be considered a flying APC or converted to one easily, it would seem that
> it lowers the weight (and durability as well) by 1 to 2 body points
> (Wheeled APC is body 7 while a tracked APC is body 8) ... Judging from
> the R2 stats, the Banshee *out performs* the APCs, having a higher armor
> rating, higher soeed rating, more cargo space with the drawbacks of a
> lower body (and thus fewr hardpoints), less load, and monstrous price tag
> ... IMO a LAV MBT is feasible but it won't be simply a flying tank ...
> it's effectiveness would be significantly reduced (but not so much to
> make the "tank" useless) and would not be cost effective ...

Also look at the tactical role for a vehicle like this... What do you
do with it? Although they have good speed, which should make
them useful as reconnaissance vehicles, Banshees would make a
lot of noise (anyone who's even been near a hovering Harrier can
tell you) so they can't very well stay undetected, which is bad for
a reconnaissance unit.

Okay, so you use them for deep penetration tactics (Blitzkrieg-
style: bypass enemy strongpoints and let follow-up units take
care of those). But then you have new problems: 1) the LAVs are
much to fast for other units to keep up; 2) they need a lot of
logistics support, which suffers from problem 1; 3) they're most
likely not armored and armed well enough to actually perform
those missions assigned to them.

What else can you do with a flying tank...?

> I have no idea what a "tooth-to-tail ratio" is but I get the jist of it
> ... hmmm ... this gives me another thought though, what has taken the
> place of the A-10's in 205x?

Probably nothing, if it's up to the U(CA)S Air Force... They're so
obsessed with high-tech planes that simple, rugged aircraft are to
be avoided at all cost. At one point they were considering
replacing the A-10 with a variant of the F-16, which would do
none of the A-10's tasks as well as the A-10 itself, but hey, it's a
fast-mover!

> First I was just going to try make MBT-esque vehicle from a LAV chasis
> ... and a true MBT using *checks book* uh-oh, no MBT chassis ... I'll
> have to use Gurth's (I think it was Gurth's)... Gurth (or Whoever it
> was), can you privately e-mail the finalized version of that chassis?

I posted it, and I've slightly modified the stats. However, you
can't make an LAV MBT out of it, because the stats are for a
tracked chassis with a diesel or gas turbine engine (no, not a
_jet_ turbine :) However, I've made up an LAV MBT chassis as
well. I'll mail you the stats for both of them.

> Then say that the Stonewall in the RBB was actually the result of
> disinformation a little underhandedness :)... The LAV "tank" and the MBT
> Stonewall were designed to look very similar (however any detailed
> observation or side-by-side comparison will reveal the truth) so that
> initial intelligence reports indicated that the CAS had developed a LAV
> MBT ... The CAS could, of course, only keep this up for so long (if they
> went to war, the illusion would end quickly :) but they made the most of
> it while they could ...
>
> What do you think? sounds reasonable?

Sounds like a reasonable enough idea... So you have a light flying
tank and a heavy normal one that looks similar externally in order
to deceive outsiders?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"That's IT, lunchbox!!! We'll go to Shermer, Illinois!"
-> 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. 29
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 09:01:44 +0000
> It's for the AV8B Harrier II, and it lists the "Maximum TOGW" (which I
> am assuming means Take-Off Ground Weight) to be 32000lbs. A quick

AV8....I get it. It's a plane.

Har Har
-=SwiftOne=-

Brett Borger
SwiftOne@***.edu
AAP Techie
Message no. 30
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 12:06:26 EDT
In a message dated 7/17/1998 3:23:18 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.COM writes:

> >There is also one more thing to consider. No where within the rules
> have the
> >concepts of "Multiple Power Plants" been fully flushed out. Let's
face
> facts,
> >think of the modified 747 (or whatever that Jet is) is that carries the
> >shuttle from point A to point B. Now go for the load bearing rules, and
> you
> >will see where things just need a bit more tweaking/flushing out in
> order to
> >really get into the swing of things.
> >
> >-K
>
> I think vehicles just need a way to make larger/smaller than average
> vehicles ... Like Small/Medium/Large Jet fighter, Small/Medium/large Van,
> etc ... Basically more chassis (what's the plural of chassis?) for
> different sized vehicles ... because a lot of vehicles won't fall into
> one body rating (ie, tanks, planes, and lots of others ...) ... Hmmm ...
> you know, train, bus, and trolley Chassis would have been nice ... (For
> those runners who have to use Public Transportation to get to the Johnson
> ... ;)
>

I've got some ideas on multiple power plants, and even larger chassis types
...

And I'll get the web addies for them later ...

-Mike (Who has been typing feversihly, but not hooking anything together)
Message no. 31
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 11:01:41 -0500
On Fri, 17 Jul 1998 12:28:41 +0100 Gurth <gurth@******.NL> writes:
>Alfredo B Alves said on 13:47/16 Jul 98,...

>> Well, there is a Swiss MBT that weighs in at less than 20 Tonnes

>No main battle tank in the world weighs 20 tons, let alone less.
<SNIP>

Okay the World Military Power that is the primary source of my military
knowledge lists some Light Tanks (and even some Engineer vehicles!) in
the Main Battle Tank section ... and my memory was fuzzy besides that as
well ... The specific tank I was thinking of was US, not Swiss :/

>I've always looked at the GMC Banshee as something like the
>American M2 and M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicles.

I can see that ... though I think I had the idea of an under-armored,
heavily armed troop carrier ... odd ... judging from the pic (which I
hope is inaccurate), the Banshee's designers expected that it'd be
shooting at things -BEHIND- it more often than not ... (rear AA-turret
mount the heavy guns; turret with missles can swivel to shoot, front
rear, and sides; and a front mount MMG ... Perhaps that's what the side
Hardpoints are for :) ... VERY odd, IMO ... you know now that I look over
the stats ... I don't know where I got the troop carrier function from
...

<SNIP>

>Also look at the tactical role for a vehicle like this... What do you
>do with it? Although
<SNIP "Can't do recon">
<SNIP "Can't do Deep Penetration">

>What else can you do with a flying tank...?

Hunt Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang?

>> I have no idea what a "tooth-to-tail ratio" is but I get the jist of
it
>> ... hmmm ... this gives me another thought though, what has taken the
>> place of the A-10's in 205x?

>Probably nothing, if it's up to the U(CA)S Air Force... They're so
>obsessed with high-tech planes that simple, rugged aircraft are to
>be avoided at all cost. At one point they were considering
>replacing the A-10 with a variant of the F-16, which would do
>none of the A-10's tasks as well as the A-10 itself, but hey, it's a
>fast-mover!

That would be a shame ... The A-10 is a great plane and I hate to see it
or its equivelant out of action :/

>> First I was just going to try make MBT-esque vehicle from a LAV chasis
>> ... and a true MBT using *checks book* uh-oh, no MBT chassis ... I'll
>> have to use Gurth's (I think it was Gurth's)... Gurth (or Whoever it
>> was), can you privately e-mail the finalized version of that chassis?

>I posted it, and I've slightly modified the stats. However, you
>can't make an LAV MBT out of it, because the stats are for a
>tracked chassis with a diesel or gas turbine engine (no, not a
>_jet_ turbine :) However, I've made up an LAV MBT chassis as
>well. I'll mail you the stats for both of them.

Well I was just going to use the standard LAV for the LAV version ... btw
after another of your posts, this is the revised CAS Stonewall situation:
The CAS built a Stonewall MBT that greatly resembled a LAV and they also
built a handful of LAVs that looked like the Stonewall (the LAVs are
EXPENSIVE especially if you want one that will pass as MBT or semi-MBT
class) ... While they were testing the MBT's artillery, they also
"tested" the Maneuverability of the LAV thus making it appear that the
CAS had a flying tank ...

What I'm going to write up is a LAV tougher than a Banshee with a
Relampago perhaps and a MPT similarly equiped ...

>> Then say that the Stonewall in the RBB was actually the result of
>> disinformation a little underhandedness :)... The LAV "tank" and the
MBT
>> Stonewall were designed to look very similar (however any detailed
>> observation or side-by-side comparison will reveal the truth) so that
>> initial intelligence reports indicated that the CAS had developed a
LAV
>> MBT ... The CAS could, of course, only keep this up for so long (if
they
>> went to war, the illusion would end quickly :) but they made the most
of
>> it while they could ...
>>
>> What do you think? sounds reasonable?

>Sounds like a reasonable enough idea... So you have a light flying
>tank and a heavy normal one that looks similar externally in order
>to deceive outsiders?
>
>--
>Gurth@******.nl -
<SNIP>

Oh sure! Make me look long-winded, why don't ou? ;) Yep that's basically
it :)

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

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 32
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 17:39:09 -0400
At 12:44 PM 7/16/98 EDT, you wrote:

>As far as why Mike's hates the Stonewall, you'll have to ask him. I dislike
>the Stonewall for two reasons: one, it violates my engineering and tactical
>senses of credibility. <shameless plug> Those of you who have T:SH have read
>my beliefs about vector-thrust technology. </shameless plug> IMO, providing
>both the lift and thrust to propel a battle tank (weighing no less than 45
>metric tons, at the minimum) is beyond the capabilities of vector thrust
>technology, either in 2052 or 2060. Also, when you add into consideration the
>massive power and energy requirements required to operate the rail gun and
>pulse laser (to borrow the term from another FASA game line), to meet the
>total power requirements you would need a tabletop nuclear reactor, which I
>can't believe would exist within the next 60 years.

Okay, here's a potentially dumb question, but I figure folks like Jon and
Gurth should be able to answer it.

How much of the tonnage of the tank is the engine? Drop all of the engine
and it's drive train and all that stuff, including tracks, and how much
would a tank weigh?

I ask because it is potentially possible that a LAV MBT wouldn't have to be
45 metric tons, it might be able to be 30 tons or something and be roughly
equivalent in armor and firepower.

I mean, if you stripped out the old engine and tracks and installed a
LAV-type system, would it still be just as heavy? Or might you be able to
have all the armor of a 45 ton MBT, but only need the engines to propel 30
tons?

Understand what I'm trying to get at? I'm not sure I'm coming across
clearly for some reason. And I'm not sure this is even a totally rational
thought, but...

Erik J.


http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/dungeon/480/index.html
The Reality Check for a Fictional World
Message no. 33
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 17:34:15 -0500
On Fri, 17 Jul 1998 17:39:09 -0400 Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM> writes:
>At 12:44 PM 7/16/98 EDT, you wrote:
<SNIP>

>Okay, here's a potentially dumb question, but I figure folks like Jon
and
>Gurth should be able to answer it.
>
<SNIP Original Question>

>Understand what I'm trying to get at? I'm not sure I'm coming across
>clearly for some reason. And I'm not sure this is even a totally
rational
>thought, but...
>
>Erik J.
<SNIPS Sig>

No, you asked the first question (or one of the first) you SHOULD ask
when converting something to another motive form ...

Since, you are worried about it not coming accross properly let me try
and reword you question (besides, it'll let you make sure I understand it
:) ...

What you want to is, If you strip away everything on a tank that is
related to driving on the ground (Engine, treads, transmission, etc...)
and replaced it with the equivelant stuff neccissary to make it a LAV
(engine, exausts, control surfaces, etc), what would the new weight be?

While I don't really know the answer, but juding from the weight of
normal military ground (such as the Apaloosa) vehicles in comparision to
LAVs, it'd be less ... how much less I don't know, but I'd guess 1 maybe
2 body points ...

That help?

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

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 34
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 18:53:42 -0400
At 05:34 PM 7/17/98 -0500, you wrote:

>No, you asked the first question (or one of the first) you SHOULD ask
>when converting something to another motive form ...

Oh goodie. Honestly, I tend to buy my SR vehicles (or at least used to) on
which one *looked* cooler. As long as the numbers were okay, that was good
enough for me most of the time. I really don't know much about vehicles in
SR or in RL.

>Since, you are worried about it not coming accross properly let me try
>and reword you question (besides, it'll let you make sure I understand it
>:) ...
>
>What you want to is, If you strip away everything on a tank that is
>related to driving on the ground (Engine, treads, transmission, etc...)
>and replaced it with the equivelant stuff neccissary to make it a LAV
>(engine, exausts, control surfaces, etc), what would the new weight be?

Yes. Better put that I originally stated.

>While I don't really know the answer, but juding from the weight of
>normal military ground (such as the Apaloosa) vehicles in comparision to
>LAVs, it'd be less ... how much less I don't know, but I'd guess 1 maybe
>2 body points ...

Okay. Would that be enough to make a LAV MBT more feasible? I'm doubting
it honestly.

Erik J.


http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/dungeon/480/index.html
The Reality Check for a Fictional World
Message no. 35
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 12:13:59 +0100
Mike Bobroff said on 12:06/17 Jul 98,...

> I've got some ideas on multiple power plants

To be honest I don't really see the need for multiple powerplants,
unless they're of different types (like Adam's article in one of the
Supplementals). The engines in Rigger 2 are vague enough that
you can simply decide that the airliner you're building has two or
four engines -- it won't make much, if any, of a difference in
game stats IMHO, and anyway you can represent the higher
available power by increasing the Load, Speed, and/or
Acceleration stats for the vehicle.

> and even larger chassis types
> ...

This, though, sounds interesting. Do you mean larger variants of
existing chassis, or completely new ones?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"That's IT, lunchbox!!! We'll go to Shermer, Illinois!"
-> 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. 36
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 12:14:00 +0100
Erik Jameson said on 17:39/17 Jul 98,...

> Okay, here's a potentially dumb question, but I figure folks like Jon and
> Gurth should be able to answer it.
>
> How much of the tonnage of the tank is the engine? Drop all of the engine
> and it's drive train and all that stuff, including tracks, and how much
> would a tank weigh?

Hmm... tough one... *looks through some books* Engines weigh
typically some 10% of the tanks total weight, the book I'm
reading in now mentions. I'm not sure about all the other
components, but I'd guess that another 10% is close enough.
That way, you lose about 10 tons off a 50-ton MBT.

> I ask because it is potentially possible that a LAV MBT wouldn't have to be
> 45 metric tons, it might be able to be 30 tons or something and be roughly
> equivalent in armor and firepower.

Not sure... If you start with a 45-ton MBT (which is likely under-
armored for a modern MBT, BTW) you still have about 35 tons of
flying vehicle left, excluding the jet engine and associated
equipment.

> I mean, if you stripped out the old engine and tracks and installed a
> LAV-type system, would it still be just as heavy? Or might you be able to
> have all the armor of a 45 ton MBT, but only need the engines to propel 30
> tons?

Don't forget that jet engines add weight too, and their fuel tanks
are often much larger (the basic LAV engine in R2 has 7,500 liters
of fuel for a range of 375 km, a diesel-engined Leopard 2 MBT
holds 1,200 l and goes 550 km with it). You need armor to
protect these things, and that weighs quite a lot -- a figure I just
read for RL MBTs is 1.5 tons per cubic meter of engine
compartment.

> Understand what I'm trying to get at? I'm not sure I'm coming across
> clearly for some reason. And I'm not sure this is even a totally rational
> thought, but...

I understand what you mean. You want to see how much an MBT
hull plus turret plus a jet engine weighs, and see if it would be
able to make an LAV out of it.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"That's IT, lunchbox!!! We'll go to Shermer, Illinois!"
-> 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. 37
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 09:54:13 EDT
In a message dated 7/18/98 5:16:04 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
gurth@******.NL writes:

> Mike Bobroff said on 12:06/17 Jul 98,...
>
> > I've got some ideas on multiple power plants
>
> To be honest I don't really see the need for multiple powerplants,
> unless they're of different types (like Adam's article in one of the
> Supplementals). The engines in Rigger 2 are vague enough that
> you can simply decide that the airliner you're building has two or
> four engines -- it won't make much, if any, of a difference in
> game stats IMHO, and anyway you can represent the higher
> available power by increasing the Load, Speed, and/or
> Acceleration stats for the vehicle.

I mean more than one power plant of the same type to increase the load rating,
or multiple different power plants to create a very unique engine type.

> > and even larger chassis types
> > ...
>
> This, though, sounds interesting. Do you mean larger variants of
> existing chassis, or completely new ones?

Yes, on one of the web pages I listed earlier this week had some new chassis
types that had larger chassis types for Tbirds, in this case they were :

Name ..................................... Body
Panzer (Small) ........................ 7
Panzer (Medium) ..................... 8
Panzer (Large) ......................... 9
Panzer (Heavy) ........................ 10

And I did make up larger power plants to accomodate these larger chassis
types.

I also have something called a Hopper ... basically take a Rotorcraft Chassis
and give it a Vector Thrust Power Plant to it instead of sticking rotorblades
on top of it.

And once I get it fully connected to Hoosier Hacker House they will be easier
to find, and I will be doing this later on today.

-Mike
Message no. 38
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 16:02:50 EDT
In a message dated 7/18/1998 5:18:46 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
gurth@******.NL writes:

> > I ask because it is potentially possible that a LAV MBT wouldn't have to
be
> > 45 metric tons, it might be able to be 30 tons or something and be
roughly
> > equivalent in armor and firepower.
>
> Not sure... If you start with a 45-ton MBT (which is likely under-
> armored for a modern MBT, BTW) you still have about 35 tons of
> flying vehicle left, excluding the jet engine and associated
> equipment.
>
I am not sure the equivalent engine weight percentage would apply for an LAV
though. For some reason, I just don't see it as being nearly so easily
managed with just a mere "10%", as you suggested in the part I snipped
(sorry). Perhaps more, 15-20 would the absolute maximum, and I am also taking
into some consideration that an LAV / Vector Thrust Engine needed for a Panzer
Chassis is also placing control vents in the fore and aft of the vehicle.

-K
Message no. 39
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 16:05:15 EDT
In a message dated 7/18/1998 5:16:04 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
gurth@******.NL writes:

> > I've got some ideas on multiple power plants
>
> To be honest I don't really see the need for multiple powerplants,
> unless they're of different types (like Adam's article in one of the
> Supplementals). The engines in Rigger 2 are vague enough that
> you can simply decide that the airliner you're building has two or
> four engines -- it won't make much, if any, of a difference in
> game stats IMHO, and anyway you can represent the higher
> available power by increasing the Load, Speed, and/or
> Acceleration stats for the vehicle.
>
The engines in R2 have only one reference that I immediately recall for
"multiple engine power plants", and that is the twin-engine plane. All other
dual or variable power plant engines are -not- assumed as such IMO. And the
concept of using the Load, Speed, Acceleration, etc.. options to reflect
multiple engines also just does NOT sit well with me.

For some reason, I just keep going back to the really large cargo (military)
planes and the 747 transport for the shuttle (which isn't a 747 anymore is
it?).

-K
Message no. 40
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 15:52:43 -0500
On Fri, 17 Jul 1998 18:53:42 -0400 Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM> writes:
>At 05:34 PM 7/17/98 -0500, you wrote:
<SNIP>
>>Since, you are worried about it not coming accross properly let me try
>>and reword you question (besides, it'll let you make sure I understand
it
>>:) ...
>>
>>What you want to is, If you strip away everything on a tank that is
>>related to driving on the ground (Engine, treads, transmission, etc...)
>>and replaced it with the equivelant stuff neccissary to make it a LAV
>>(engine, exausts, control surfaces, etc), what would the new weight be?

>Yes. Better put that I originally stated.

See... you had nothing to worry about ... it came accross fine :)

>>While I don't really know the answer, but juding from the weight of
>>normal military ground (such as the Apaloosa) vehicles in comparision
to
>>LAVs, it'd be less ... how much less I don't know, but I'd guess 1
maybe
>>2 body points ...

>Okay. Would that be enough to make a LAV MBT more feasible? I'm
doubting
>it honestly.
>
>Erik J.
<SNIP>

It would IMO, make it feasable to make something that /Approaches/ a MBT
but I doubt you could just take a MBT and make it VT without losing
effectiveness ...

Another thought though ... what if you deliberately reduce the LAV MBTs
perforance as a LAV and make it more of a VT version of a hover craft?
(maybe give it a flight ceiling of 10-20 meters? Wouldn't that make a
very effective and highly maneuverable MBT that is immune (sort of) to
land mines? and who need an Anti-Perssonel Kill Zone if you're
surrounded by jetwash?

Btw, Gurth, You are welcome to put whatever Stats I post in that military
net.book if they meet your approval ... I might also try to make stats
for an A-10-esque plane (I -LOVE- that thing ;) ... Hmmmmm ... Nose
mounted minigun or auto-cannon? :)

D.Ghost (Who is happy dancing because he managed to restore his mailbox
... :)
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone"

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 41
From: Whocares Mr_Nemo <vwookiee@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 00:45:24 PDT
<snip all>

VT craft like T-birds are designed for speed having a look at the
figures (sorry away from my books UNi is where my comp lies so no
quoting) but tanks arnt designed for that and i imagine yould have a
hard time playing in the desert when your tank divisions are cruising
around at high spd trying to hit each other

I know its possible and jets do it but they are cruising at the same
spds and stuff what the movies say more of a dogfight is trying to get
into a firing position than shotting (top gun is good for showing this)
so youll have to groups of tanks flying around hoping to get into a
firing position

sorry guys i just dont see it

-Dexter
"Heres to the dogfighting tank drivers -Cheers"

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 42
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 03:30:03 -0500
On Sun, 19 Jul 1998 00:45:24 PDT Whocares Mr_Nemo <vwookiee@*******.COM>
writes:
><snip all>
>VT craft like T-birds are designed for speed having a look at the
>figures (sorry away from my books UNi is where my comp lies so no
>quoting) but tanks arnt designed for that and i imagine yould have a
>hard time playing in the desert when your tank divisions are cruising
>around at high spd trying to hit each other
>
>I know its possible and jets do it but they are cruising at the same
>spds and stuff what the movies say more of a dogfight is trying to get
>into a firing position than shotting (top gun is good for showing this)
>so youll have to groups of tanks flying around hoping to get into a
>firing position
>
>sorry guys i just dont see it
>
>-Dexter
<SNIP Sig>

Here, let me help :)

Jet fighters have fixed forward mounted guns (AFAIK, this is always the
case [for jet fighters at least]), Thunderbirds like the Banshee and the
Version of the Stonewall I presented, have Anti Aircraft turrets so while
a jet fighter can only fire forward, Thunderbirds can shoot in almost a
hemisphere (there is still a "safe" zone above the turret) AA turrets
give 360 degree fireing arc and can drop 10 degrees from "level"
(parrallel to current flight path) or raise 45 degrees from "level" this
makes T-bird dogfights MUCH nastier ...

Now can you see it? or does it still seem unlikely?

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

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 43
From: Whocares Mr_Nemo <vwookiee@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 02:31:45 PDT
>Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 03:30:03 -0500
>From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
>On Sun, 19 Jul 1998 00:45:24 PDT Whocares Mr_Nemo
<vwookiee@*******.COM>
>writes:
>><snip all>
>>VT craft like T-birds are designed for speed having a look at the
>>figures (sorry away from my books UNi is where my comp lies so no
>>quoting) but tanks arnt designed for that and i imagine yould have a
>>hard time playing in the desert when your tank divisions are cruising
>>around at high spd trying to hit each other
>>
>>I know its possible and jets do it but they are cruising at the same
>>spds and stuff what the movies say more of a dogfight is trying to get
>>into a firing position than shotting (top gun is good for showing
this)
>>so youll have to groups of tanks flying around hoping to get into a
>>firing position
>>
>>sorry guys i just dont see it
>>
>>-Dexter
><SNIP Sig>
>
>Here, let me help :)
>
>Jet fighters have fixed forward mounted guns (AFAIK, this is always the
>case [for jet fighters at least]), Thunderbirds like the Banshee and
the
>Version of the Stonewall I presented, have Anti Aircraft turrets so
while
>a jet fighter can only fire forward, Thunderbirds can shoot in almost a
>hemisphere (there is still a "safe" zone above the turret) AA turrets
>give 360 degree fireing arc and can drop 10 degrees from "level"
>(parrallel to current flight path) or raise 45 degrees from "level"
this
>makes T-bird dogfights MUCH nastier ...
>
>Now can you see it? or does it still seem unlikely?
>
>D.Ghost
<quick snip>

I forgot about the rigger gunning aspect of these toys as a normal brain
needs more time to reaction than the rigger mind so true possible.

-Dexter
-- he who needs to change the name plate soon
"Who fires the first bullet dont always win its really he who has the
most friends"


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 44
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 12:34:26 +0100
K is the Symbol said on 16:02/18 Jul 98,...

> I am not sure the equivalent engine weight percentage would apply for an LAV
> though. For some reason, I just don't see it as being nearly so easily
> managed with just a mere "10%", as you suggested in the part I snipped
> (sorry).

Maybe I understood Erik wrong, but it looked to me like he was
asking how much a current MBT, minus its entire propulsion
system, weighs. That's the question I was answering, and I
speculated a bit on whether it would be feasible to turn the result
into an LAV (which it isn't, IMHO); but I didn't mean to suggest
that by simply reducing the weight by 10% or 20% you have an
LAV... If you take the drive system out of an MBT, you have a
bunker, not a flying tank :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"That's IT, lunchbox!!! We'll go to Shermer, Illinois!"
-> 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. 45
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 12:34:25 +0100
Mike Bobroff said on 9:54/18 Jul 98,...

> I mean more than one power plant of the same type to increase the load rating,
> or multiple different power plants to create a very unique engine type.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we have this same discussion
a few months ago? :)

> Yes, on one of the web pages I listed earlier this week had some new chassis
> types that had larger chassis types for Tbirds, in this case they were :
>
> Name ..................................... Body
> Panzer (Small) ........................ 7
> Panzer (Medium) ..................... 8
> Panzer (Large) ......................... 9
> Panzer (Heavy) ........................ 10
>
> And I did make up larger power plants to accomodate these larger chassis
> types.

I wrote up a Thunderbird MBT chassis, with a Body of 8 and 12
points of armor, plus an engine for it. It's not on the net
anywhere (yet), though.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"That's IT, lunchbox!!! We'll go to Shermer, Illinois!"
-> 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. 46
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 12:34:26 +0100
Whocares Mr_Nemo said on 0:45/19 Jul 98,...

> VT craft like T-birds are designed for speed having a look at the
> figures (sorry away from my books UNi is where my comp lies so no
> quoting) but tanks arnt designed for that

Tanks aren't designed for speed? Then please tell me, why do the
M1 and Leopard 2 go 70 km/h, or a lot faster (120+) with some
minor engine modifications?

> and i imagine yould have a hard time playing in the desert
> when your tank divisions are cruising around at high spd trying
> to hit each other

Just a few remarks here... Modern western tanks are equipped
with fire control systems (FCS) that give a typical crew about 9
hits out of 10 at 2 or 3 kilometers range, longer than that if the
tank and/or target are stationary. Thus, if you have such an FCS,
then deserts are ideal tank country -- they allow for very long
engagement ranges, and tanks can make use of their speed. (This
is one reason why Desert Storm was such a slaughterhouse for
the Iraqis -- their Chinese and Russian tanks couldn't fire
accurately at the ranges the British and Americans could.)

T-birds are extremely fast, but that's also their problem -- to get
that fast they need too much support, and both the T-bird and its
supporting units draw too much attention to themselves. Ever
seen the dustclouds an MBT kicks up in a desert? Imagine what a
T-bird would do...

> I know its possible and jets do it but they are cruising at the same
> spds and stuff what the movies say more of a dogfight is trying to get
> into a firing position than shotting (top gun is good for showing this)
> so youll have to groups of tanks flying around hoping to get into a
> firing position

That's more or less what happens, yes. Mike Loseke might be
better at explaining this, as he has first-hand experience while I
have to try and remember what I read and saw on TV
documentaries, but AFAIK modern land warfare consists of a
large degree of trying to stay out of sight of the enemy while
taking up good firing positions yourself.

> sorry guys i just dont see it

You don't see what?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"That's IT, lunchbox!!! We'll go to Shermer, Illinois!"
-> 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. 47
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 14:01:02 EDT
In a message dated 7/19/98 2:46:11 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
vwookiee@*******.COM writes:

> VT craft like T-birds are designed for speed having a look at the
> figures (sorry away from my books UNi is where my comp lies so no
> quoting) but tanks arnt designed for that and i imagine yould have a
> hard time playing in the desert when your tank divisions are cruising
> around at high spd trying to hit each other
>
> I know its possible and jets do it but they are cruising at the same
> spds and stuff what the movies say more of a dogfight is trying to get
> into a firing position than shotting (top gun is good for showing this)
> so youll have to groups of tanks flying around hoping to get into a
> firing position
>
> sorry guys i just dont see it
>

Has anyone considered the possiblity that the Stonewall MBT could be a
misnomer ... it could actually a specially designed Airliner with an Airliner
Power Plant ... this would explain all of the hardpoints, speed, and armor it
could possibly have.

Just a thought.

-Herc
-------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
Message no. 48
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 14:07:55 EDT
In a message dated 7/19/98 5:35:57 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
gurth@******.NL writes:

> > I mean more than one power plant of the same type to increase the load
> rating,
> > or multiple different power plants to create a very unique engine type.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we have this same discussion
> a few months ago? :)

Yes, it was, and someone said they were going to be putting something together
which was more RL than the R2 was, but I went ahead and made my own anyway.

> > Yes, on one of the web pages I listed earlier this week had some new
> chassis
> > types that had larger chassis types for Tbirds, in this case they were :
> >
> > Name ..................................... Body
> > Panzer (Small) ........................ 7
> > Panzer (Medium) ..................... 8
> > Panzer (Large) ......................... 9
> > Panzer (Heavy) ........................ 10
> >
> > And I did make up larger power plants to accomodate these larger chassis
> > types.
>
> I wrote up a Thunderbird MBT chassis, with a Body of 8 and 12
> points of armor, plus an engine for it. It's not on the net
> anywhere (yet), though.

Yeah ... the Pontiac Thunderbird, I thoroughly enjoyed it, and I still have it
saved somewhere just to keep looking at it.

-Herc
-------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
Message no. 49
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 13:50:55 -0500
On Sun, 19 Jul 1998 14:07:55 EDT Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM> writes:
>In a message dated 7/19/98 5:35:57 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
>gurth@******.NL writes:
>
>> > I mean more than one power plant of the same type to increase the
load
>> > rating,
>> > or multiple different power plants to create a very unique engine
type.

>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we have this same discussion
>> a few months ago? :)

>Yes, it was, and someone said they were going to be putting something
together
>which was more RL than the R2 was, but I went ahead and made my own
anyway.

Was that me? and the Rigger 2 "fix" project I abandoned because I
received no support from the list?

>> > Yes, on one of the web pages I listed earlier this week had some new
>> >chassis
>> > types that had larger chassis types for Tbirds, in this case they
were :
>> >
>> > Name ..................................... Body
>> > Panzer (Small) ........................ 7
>> > Panzer (Medium) ..................... 8
>> > Panzer (Large) ......................... 9
>> > Panzer (Heavy) ........................ 10

hey, btw, for making charts like this in email, use a fixed width
font(like FixedSys (Thanks, Gurth :)

>> > And I did make up larger power plants to accomodate these larger
chassis
>> > types.

>> I wrote up a Thunderbird MBT chassis, with a Body of 8 and 12
>> points of armor, plus an engine for it. It's not on the net
>> anywhere (yet), though.

>Yeah ... the Pontiac Thunderbird, I thoroughly enjoyed it, and I still
have it
>saved somewhere just to keep looking at it.
>
>-Herc
<SNIP>

Gurth wrote up the T-Bird MBT chassis, I did the Pontiac Thunderbird ...
:) Glad you liked it :) ... Hmmmm I don't know if I have the stats or if
they got eaten in a Windows crash ...

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

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 50
From: "Leszek Karlik, aka Mike" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 23:28:02 GMT
On 16 Jul 98 21:17:06 GMT, Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU (The Bookworm)
disseminated foul capitalist propaganda by writing:

[...]
>Yep! They were working on a nuclear powered bomber for supper long
>range/endurence without having to rely on tanker suport. I think it was
>in paralel with the nuclear rocket project at NASA. They got both to work
>but then they realized it might not be a good idea to actualy fly the
>stupid things. I mean military aircraft are designed to be in combat and
>one WILL be shot down not to mention the regular accidents in training.
>Do you really want to have U235 fuel rods spilling all over the place
>everytime you lose a bomber?

Well, AFAIK, they did not realize it would not be a good idea to fly a
nuke-powered plane, but they were blocked by, erm, politicians.

The same thing as with Orion.

A pity, really, especially the Orion.

(But then, I live on another continent. <grin>)

> Thomas Price
Leslie
--
Leszek Karlik, aka Mike - trrkt@*****.onet.pl; www.wlkp.top.pl/~bear/mike
Star Wars junkie; ICQ UIN 6947998; WTF TKD; FIAWOL; IMAO; SNAFU; TANJ
GL/O d- s+: a20 C+++ L++ P E--- W-(++) N+++ K? w(---) O+ M- PS+(+++)
PE Y+ PGP- !t--- 5+(-) X- R*+++>$ tv-- b++++ D+ G-- e h--*! !r-- !y-*
Message no. 51
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 09:24:05 EDT
In a message dated 7/19/1998 2:59:34 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.COM writes:

> Gurth wrote up the T-Bird MBT chassis, I did the Pontiac Thunderbird ...
> :) Glad you liked it :) ... Hmmmm I don't know if I have the stats or if
> they got eaten in a Windows crash ...

I believe I still have it somewhere, I just need to find it.

-Herc
--------The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
Message no. 52
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 09:26:30 EDT
In a message dated 7/19/1998 2:59:34 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.COM writes:

> >> > I mean more than one power plant of the same type to increase the
> load
> >> > rating,
> >> > or multiple different power plants to create a very unique engine
> type.
>
> >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we have this same discussion
> >> a few months ago? :)
>
> >Yes, it was, and someone said they were going to be putting something
> together
> >which was more RL than the R2 was, but I went ahead and made my own
> anyway.
>
> Was that me? and the Rigger 2 "fix" project I abandoned because I
> received no support from the list?

Yep, I do believe that you were the one who wanted to do that, the only reason
I did not support it was that I thought it would get bogged down to much into
RL details about engines and the like.

Most of the power plants I whipped up are either SOTA advances or different
applications of power plants already in the book (like using the UAV VT Drone
Power Plants to power the VT Cars and Bikes I have designed).

-Herc
-------- The best Mechanic you can ever have.
Message no. 53
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 09:58:15 -0500
On Mon, 20 Jul 1998 09:26:30 EDT Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM> writes:
>In a message dated 7/19/1998 2:59:34 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
>dghost@****.COM writes:
>
<SNIP>
>> >>Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we have this same discussion
>> >>a few months ago? :)

>> >Yes, it was, and someone said they were going to be putting something
>> >together
>> >>which was more RL than the R2 was, but I went ahead and made my own
>> >>anyway.

>> Was that me? and the Rigger 2 "fix" project I abandoned because I
>> received no support from the list?

>Yep, I do believe that you were the one who wanted to do that, the only
reason
>I did not support it was that I thought it would get bogged down to much
into
>RL details about engines and the like.
>
>Most of the power plants I whipped up are either SOTA advances or
different
>applications of power plants already in the book (like using the UAV VT
Drone
>Power Plants to power the VT Cars and Bikes I have designed).
>
>-Herc
>-------- The best Mechanic you can ever have.

Oooops ... Well in that case, you may not like what I'm changing the
project to ... a different system (for vehicle constronction) geared
towards people who can handle more math ... (ie, Installing <engine size
here> <engine here, like Electric> yields <goofy semi-technical sounding
name, like Force Factors (which is used to calc Load, Accel, & Speed)>
and takes up <CF consumption of engine> and weighs <weight if engine> ...
then realizing that this is insuficient for a Jumbo Jet Liner, I add more
engines until either I run out of CF or the Speed is raised above the
plane'sstall rating ...) Oh well, that may have to be postponed
indefinately however ... :)

Btw, someone explained how Nitrous Oxide (NO2) can help with braking ...
something about engine overpressurization causing the engine to want to
stop which is transferred to the wheels ... so basicly using NO2 helps
the car go faster (by improving combustion rate) more than it makes the
car want to slow down ... but wouldn't this engine overpressurization
only affect the car when it's not applying its brakes? I mean the brakes
make the axle stop spinning and the change from rolling friction to
sliding friction is what slows the car down ... or is this only when you
slam on the brakes?

Also, unless someone can explain the variable Acceleration stuff (I mean
logically ... I know what the rules are), I'm going to multiply all the
accel stats by 5 and say that is how much they accelerate per turn ...
which makes a Saab Dynamit capable of 0 to 60 mph (0 to 96.6 kph) in 3.8
seconds which seems okay (a bit to fast actually but not too bad ...)

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. 54
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 20:11:14 +0100
Not Mike Bobroff said on 9:24/20 Jul 98,...

> > Gurth wrote up the T-Bird MBT chassis

Which I haven't posted to the list; the only MBT chassis I posted
was for the tracked version, which I've since adjusted a bit.

--
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. 55
From: "Ubiratan P. Alberton" <ubiratan@**.HOMESHOPPING.COM.BR>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 12:44:48 -0300
>Btw, Gurth, You are welcome to put whatever Stats I post in that military
>net.book if they meet your approval ... I might also try to make stats
>for an A-10-esque plane (I -LOVE- that thing ;) ... Hmmmmm ... Nose
>mounted minigun or auto-cannon? :)

I'd bet it's an auto-cannon... I've heard many A-10 enthusiasts saying
that it chews on
tanks easily...

Bira
Message no. 56
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 17:49:45 -0500
On Mon, 20 Jul 1998 12:44:48 -0300 "Ubiratan P. Alberton"
<ubiratan@**.HOMESHOPPING.COM.BR> writes:
>>Btw, Gurth, You are welcome to put whatever Stats I post in that
military
>>net.book if they meet your approval ... I might also try to make stats
>>for an A-10-esque plane (I -LOVE- that thing ;) ... Hmmmmm ... Nose
>>mounted minigun or auto-cannon? :)

> I'd bet it's an auto-cannon... I've heard many A-10 enthusiasts
saying
>that it chews on
>tanks easily...
>
> Bira

An Autocannon is heavy! and if you unload 15 rounds of FA from a
Vanquisher into something, it is resisting 25 D + 4 additional levels of
staging! I don't think the Vanquiser counts as AV so a tank would have to
resist 25D + 3 additional levels of staging ... - 1 more level of staging
if it has Smart Armor ... That seems pretty nasty to me ... especially if
the Gunner gets Lots of successes :)

Of course unloading a Victory autocannon gives you a starting damage code
32 D + 4 levels of additional staging and then would be modified as above
... ouch ... of course the Vanquisher is much cheaper and probably easier
to maintain ... additionally, while the Autocannon is more effective,
IMO, the Vengance or Vanquisher is more appropriate ...

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. 57
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 07:07:20 EDT
In a message dated 7/20/98 5:55:30 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.COM writes:

> >>Btw, Gurth, You are welcome to put whatever Stats I post in that
> military
> >>net.book if they meet your approval ... I might also try to make stats
> >>for an A-10-esque plane (I -LOVE- that thing ;) ... Hmmmmm ... Nose
> >>mounted minigun or auto-cannon? :)
>
> > I'd bet it's an auto-cannon... I've heard many A-10 enthusiasts
> saying
> >that it chews on
> >tanks easily...
> >
> > Bira
>
> An Autocannon is heavy! and if you unload 15 rounds of FA from a
> Vanquisher into something, it is resisting 25 D + 4 additional levels of
> staging! I don't think the Vanquiser counts as AV so a tank would have to
> resist 25D + 3 additional levels of staging ... - 1 more level of staging
> if it has Smart Armor ... That seems pretty nasty to me ... especially if
> the Gunner gets Lots of successes :)

Ahem ... a Medium turret can give any of the weapons contained within itself a
total of 12 points of Gunnery Recoil adjustment. The rate of fire for
Vehicular MMGs, HMGs and Autocannons is either SS (1) or FA (from 6 to -12-
rounds). So, a medium turret with maxxed out recoil comp is not going to
worry about the effects of the Victory being fired on full auto.

> Of course unloading a Victory autocannon gives you a starting damage code
> 32 D + 4 levels of additional staging and then would be modified as above
> ... ouch ... of course the Vanquisher is much cheaper and probably easier
> to maintain ... additionally, while the Autocannon is more effective,
> IMO, the Vengance or Vanquisher is more appropriate ...

There is perhaps another weapon that could be put in place of the Victory, it
would require a Medium Turret, and would take up all of the weapon points in
it. How about an ANDREWS ?!? The MBT may not be able to recharge it, but an
ANDREWS holds 40-50 shots in battery storage. And this would give the MBT a
NAVAL CATEGORY WEAPON.

-Herc
-------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
Message no. 58
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 14:00:44 +0100
Ubiratan P. Alberton said on 12:44/20 Jul 98,...

> I'd bet it's an auto-cannon... I've heard many A-10 enthusiasts saying
> that it chews on tanks easily...

I'd call it an autocannon; 30x173 mm is a bit too large to call it a
minigun (which is a name applied to electrically-driven, rifle-
caliber, rotary-barrel weapons).

As for the tank-killing capabilities of this gun, one of the main
reasons is that it attacks from above, and so gets to "chew" on
the tank's thin roof armor rather than the frontal armor (which in
modern MBTs is equivalent to at least half a meter of steel, if not
much more; no way is a 30 mm round going to go through that).

--
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. 59
From: The Bookworm <Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 09:14:11 -0500
On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Gurth wrote:

> Ubiratan P. Alberton said on 12:44/20 Jul 98,...
> > I'd bet it's an auto-cannon... I've heard many A-10 enthusiasts saying
> > that it chews on tanks easily...
> I'd call it an autocannon; 30x173 mm is a bit too large to call it a
> minigun (which is a name applied to electrically-driven, rifle-
> caliber, rotary-barrel weapons).

There is a bit of size diference between 7.52mm and 30mm rounds. And
between a weapon 3 feet long and one 10 feet long. If you have ever
gotten to see the GUA-8 gun system outside an air fraim you realize just
how big it is. They often take pictures of it next to smaller cars such
as VW Beetles. It Ends up being larger than the car! :)

> As for the tank-killing capabilities of this gun, one of the main
> reasons is that it attacks from above, and so gets to "chew" on
> the tank's thin roof armor rather than the frontal armor (which in
> modern MBTs is equivalent to at least half a meter of steel, if not
> much more; no way is a 30 mm round going to go through that).

That definatly helps but the Depleted Uranium penatrator on the bullets is
a help along with the incredible muzzle velocity on the thing. IIRC the
muzzle velocity is so high that at normal ranges the bullets do not seem
to have a significant curve to their balistic path. The entire sight
system for the pilot is a FIXED dot on the windscreen. Put the dot over
the target and pull the trigger and you hit the target. The RoF on the
cannon varies from 3 thousand to 4 thousand rounds per minute. It takes a
few rounds to speed the barrels up to the higher RoF. The USAF considers
12 rounds expended in a firing run enough to ensure a kill on most tanks
when fired by a compitent pilot. Its a good thing concidering the pilot
only has about five hundred rounds total in the ammunition drum.

*calms himself down* Sorry the A-10 is one of my Favorite aircraft. Right
up there with the AC-130 Spector Gunship!

Thomas Price
aka The Bookworm
thomas.m.price@*******.edu
tmprice@***********.com
Message no. 60
From: The Bookworm <Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 09:24:01 -0500
On Mon, 20 Jul 1998, Alfredo B Alves wrote:

> An Autocannon is heavy! and if you unload 15 rounds of FA from a
> Vanquisher into something, it is resisting 25 D + 4 additional levels of
> staging! I don't think the Vanquiser counts as AV so a tank would have to
> resist 25D + 3 additional levels of staging ... - 1 more level of staging
> if it has Smart Armor ... That seems pretty nasty to me ... especially if
> the Gunner gets Lots of successes :)

AHHH but the armor of the tank is used to reduce the target number of the
body test correct? Most tanks we have talked about have an armor of 20+
and HIGH bodies. All the sudden that 25D is a 2-5 target number and they
are rolling atleast 6-8 dice just from the body of the tank.

> Of course unloading a Victory autocannon gives you a starting damage code
> 32 D + 4 levels of additional staging and then would be modified as above

giving you a target number of 8-12 after armor. Much harder to save
against and in very in line with a weapon designed to take out MBT with
one 12 round burst.

> ... ouch ... of course the Vanquisher is much cheaper and probably easier
> to maintain ... additionally, while the Autocannon is more effective,
> IMO, the Vengance or Vanquisher is more appropriate ...

Not for the A-10. Have you ever seen the SIZE of that thing? its about
the same size all told as a small car. They actualy designed the Airplane
around the GUA-8. If you look at an A-10 from the front the gun barrel
that will being firing is exactly on the centerline and the nose wheel is
way off to the left side.

Thomas Price
aka The Bookworm
thomas.m.price@*******.edu
tmprice@***********.com
Message no. 61
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 09:54:06 -0500
On Tue, 21 Jul 1998 07:07:20 EDT Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM> writes:
>In a message dated 7/20/98 5:55:30 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
>dghost@****.COM writes:
>> >>Btw, Gurth, You are welcome to put whatever Stats I post in that
military
>> >>net.book if they meet your approval ... I might also try to make
stats
>> >>for an A-10-esque plane (I -LOVE- that thing ;) ... Hmmmmm ... Nose
>> >>mounted minigun or auto-cannon? :)

>> > I'd bet it's an auto-cannon... I've heard many A-10 enthusiasts
saying
>> >that it chews on
>> >tanks easily...
>> >
>> > Bira

>>An Autocannon is heavy! and if you unload 15 rounds of FA from a
>>Vanquisher into something, it is resisting 25 D + 4 additional levels
of
^^^^^^^^^^
>>staging! I don't think the Vanquiser counts as AV so a tank would have
to
>>resist 25D + 3 additional levels of staging ... - 1 more level of
staging
>>if it has Smart Armor ... That seems pretty nasty to me ... especially
if
>>the Gunner gets Lots of successes :)

>Ahem ... a Medium turret can give any of the weapons contained within
itself a
>total of 12 points of Gunnery Recoil adjustment. The rate of fire for
>Vehicular MMGs, HMGs and Autocannons is either SS (1) or FA (from 6 to
-12-
>rounds). So, a medium turret with maxxed out recoil comp is not going
to
>worry about the effects of the Victory being fired on full auto.

Ahem ... I said Vanquisher which is a Minigun ... it can fire -15- rounds
... On the larger vehicles (body 8+), you can mount enough gyroscopic
stabalization to negate the recoil ...

<SNIP>

>There is perhaps another weapon that could be put in place of the
Victory, it
>would require a Medium Turret, and would take up all of the weapon
points in
>it. How about an ANDREWS ?!? The MBT may not be able to recharge it,
but an
>ANDREWS holds 40-50 shots in battery storage. And this would give the
MBT a
>NAVAL CATEGORY WEAPON.
>
>-Herc
>-------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.

You realize we're talking about a -plane-? I don't think I want to see
an airplane with Naval Class guns ... IMO, If you try to mount naval
class guns on a non-naval class vehicle, they should suffer from double
normal recoil (which does apply in this case since the ADNREWS is a laser
type weapon) ...

Btw Mike, I was told to ask you about "Beauty"

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. 62
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 10:53:26 -0500
On Tue, 21 Jul 1998 09:24:01 -0500 The Bookworm
<Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU> writes:
>On Mon, 20 Jul 1998, Alfredo B Alves wrote:
>> An Autocannon is heavy! and if you unload 15 rounds of FA from a
>> Vanquisher into something, it is resisting 25 D + 4 additional levels
of
>> staging! I don't think the Vanquiser counts as AV so a tank would have
to
>> resist 25D + 3 additional levels of staging ... - 1 more level of
staging
>> if it has Smart Armor ... That seems pretty nasty to me ... especially
if
>> the Gunner gets Lots of successes :)

>AHHH but the armor of the tank is used to reduce the target number of
the
>body test correct? Most tanks we have talked about have an armor of 20+
>and HIGH bodies. All the sudden that 25D is a 2-5 target number and
they
>are rolling atleast 6-8 dice just from the body of the tank.

Ahhhhhh ... but unless, the vehicle has SAS (Smart Armor System), you
need 6 successes just to stage it down to Deadly damage ... Plus, Armor
piercing rounds should be available, making this a VERY nasty toy indeed
:)

>> Of course unloading a Victory autocannon gives you a starting damage
code
>> 32 D + 4 levels of additional staging and then would be modified as
above

>giving you a target number of 8-12 after armor. Much harder to save
>against and in very in line with a weapon designed to take out MBT with
>one 12 round burst.

Oh, there is no doubt in my mind that an autocannon is more effective ...
but I think you are underestimatting the Vanquisher ...

>> ... ouch ... of course the Vanquisher is much cheaper and probably
easier
>> to maintain ... additionally, while the Autocannon is more effective,
>> IMO, the Vengance or Vanquisher is more appropriate ...

>Not for the A-10. Have you ever seen the SIZE of that thing? its about
>the same size all told as a small car. They actualy designed the
Airplane
>around the GUA-8. If you look at an A-10 from the front the gun barrel
>that will being firing is exactly on the centerline and the nose wheel
is
>way off to the left side.
>
> Thomas Price
<SNIP Sig>

If I do design this, I'll prolly put an autocannon in it but the rpms
don't quite add up ... The A-10's gun is supposed to be FAST (The
fastest?) in so far as rounds per minute ... yet an average person
(intiative of 10 or less), can only get 240 rpm out of an autocannon and
300 out of a minigun (I think in the BBB it says that the SR system uses
a MUCH lower ROF for survivability's sake ... so I'm just calcing the
rounds per minute to compare the two to each other, not to RL :) ... now
a rigger (with VCR 3) can get more shots out them, depending on how
rapidly s/he can hold the trigger down (IOW, the intiative score :) ...
s/he can get 960+ rounds per minute out of an autocannon and 1,200 out of
a minigun ... on average, s/he'll get 720/900 rounds per minute though
... IMO, the Minigun is effective (when combined with Armor Piercing
rounds) and has an appropriate ROF ...

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. 63
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 12:53:26 EDT
In a message dated 7/21/1998 9:24:55 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU writes:

> AHHH but the armor of the tank is used to reduce the target number of the
> body test correct? Most tanks we have talked about have an armor of 20+
> and HIGH bodies. All the sudden that 25D is a 2-5 target number and they
> are rolling atleast 6-8 dice just from the body of the tank.
>
> > Of course unloading a Victory autocannon gives you a starting damage code
> > 32 D + 4 levels of additional staging and then would be modified as above
>
> giving you a target number of 8-12 after armor. Much harder to save
> against and in very in line with a weapon designed to take out MBT with
> one 12 round burst.
>
Ah, for some reason, I get the feeling the topic of -Skill- is being missed
here. Successes on the part of the shooter are applied to this, and thus
remove the effect of "armor" to a certain extent (depending upon the success
test of course).

-K
Message no. 64
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 20:45:54 +0100
The Bookworm said on 9:24/21 Jul 98,...

> AHHH but the armor of the tank is used to reduce the target number of the
> body test correct? Most tanks we have talked about have an armor of 20+
> and HIGH bodies. All the sudden that 25D is a 2-5 target number and they
> are rolling atleast 6-8 dice just from the body of the tank.

Like Keith said, everybody seems to forget the shooter's
successes -- which in many situations will equal or exceed the
number of dice the target gets to roll...

OTOH, firing a Victory cannon against a vehicle with Armor 20 or
more is just a waste of ammo, unless you're using some kind of
armor-piercing ammo.

> Not for the A-10. Have you ever seen the SIZE of that thing? its about
> the same size all told as a small car. They actualy designed the Airplane
> around the GUA-8. If you look at an A-10 from the front the gun barrel
> that will being firing is exactly on the centerline and the nose wheel is
> way off to the left side.

True, but what they usually show in photographs (I have one at
hand while typing this) is the gun PLUS its large ammo drum and
feeding mechanism; the weapon itself is only 2.9 meters long,
which is a bit long for a 30 mm cannon, but not excessive.

--
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: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 20:45:53 +0100
The Bookworm said on 9:14/21 Jul 98,...

> That definatly helps but the Depleted Uranium penatrator on the bullets is
> a help along with the incredible muzzle velocity on the thing.

About 1,000 m/s at the muzzle isn't that incredible, really.
5.56x45 mm rounds do much the same, and APFSDS tank rounds
go a lot faster...

> The RoF on the
> cannon varies from 3 thousand to 4 thousand rounds per minute.

2,100 or 4,200 rpm, selectable by the pilot depending on whether
it's used for ground attack or air-to-air firing.

> Its a good thing concidering the pilot
> only has about five hundred rounds total in the ammunition drum.

1350 rounds at maximum, though standard load is 1174 rounds.

> *calms himself down* Sorry the A-10 is one of my Favorite aircraft. Right
> up there with the AC-130 Spector Gunship!

It shows, but you need to get your numbers right ;)

--
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: "Mark J. Steedman" <Mark@******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 19:37:05 +0000
The Bookworm writes

> There is a bit of size diference between 7.52mm and 30mm rounds. And
> between a weapon 3 feet long and one 10 feet long. If you have ever
> gotten to see the GUA-8 gun system outside an air fraim you realize just
> how big it is. They often take pictures of it next to smaller cars such
> as VW Beetles. It Ends up being larger than the car! :)
>
Considerably, this seems to be one of those photos that shows up a
lot.
I have generally considered the SR cannons as equivalent to 20 and
23mm weapons which are a somewhat more reasonable size but capable of
killing anything but the front armour of a true MBT. Note that SR all
round armour factors don't represent real tanks which can have about
tripple the armour on the front as opposed to the back, simply
because something with Challenger or M1 level armour all round would
be an immobile 1000lb bomb attractor.

> That definatly helps but the Depleted Uranium penatrator on the bullets is
> a help along with the incredible muzzle velocity on the thing.
And the fact you are shooting down on the thin top armour, much of
the claimed 'armour thickness' of MBT front armour is actually the
fact that the largest part of it is sloped at over 75 degrees to the
trajectory of an incomming solid round from an enemy tank, hence the
A10 has a slightly unfair advantage, which is why the darned things
make such wonderful tank killers, that and the fact they have
titanium armour under the pilot, nearly 'silent' engines (well by the
time you can hear it there are 30mm slugs bouncing about your tank
even if you had the engine off) and can fly even with about 1/3 of
its wing area shot off.

> the target and pull the trigger and you hit the target. The RoF on the
> cannon varies from 3 thousand to 4 thousand rounds per minute. It takes a
> few rounds to speed the barrels up to the higher RoF. The USAF considers
> 12 rounds expended in a firing run enough to ensure a kill on most tanks
> when fired by a compitent pilot. Its a good thing concidering the pilot
> only has about five hundred rounds total in the ammunition drum.
>
Which is why RoF does not have to equal the RoF achieved in SR, with
high RoF weapons if you actually hold the trigger down you run out of
ammo before you know what happened, there is little point firing more
than 20 odd rounds of ammo from anything but indirect anti aircraft
(where you are utting up lead for them to run into) guns, by that
stage either you killed it in style or it had enough armour to ignore
you. Equally true in SR, the full auto weapons with 12+ rounds/action
soon reach a point where if the rounds didn't bounce off because a
single bullet doesn't exceed the hardened armour then the poor very
dead target needs 12's to resist.

> *calms himself down* Sorry the A-10 is one of my Favorite aircraft.
Yes, very nice airplane
>Right up there with the AC-130 Spector Gunship!
Um :),........ now fields of fire has a sitable plane, and Rotary
autocannon will double for boforous but the 75/90mm recoiless ......
One way to wake up characters busy helping the Amazonian resistance
:), someone in the Atzlan 3rd legion will think, well the USA tried
em, if you cannot see the target circle and use more ammo! :)

Mark
-------
http://www.mnist77.demon.co.uk/Shadowrun
Message no. 67
From: The Bookworm <Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 14:06:18 -0500
On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Alfredo B Alves wrote:
> If I do design this, I'll prolly put an autocannon in it but the rpms
> don't quite add up ... The A-10's gun is supposed to be FAST (The
> fastest?) in so far as rounds per minute ... yet an average person
> (intiative of 10 or less), can only get 240 rpm out of an autocannon and
> 300 out of a minigun (I think in the BBB it says that the SR system uses
> a MUCH lower ROF for survivability's sake ... so I'm just calcing the
> rounds per minute to compare the two to each other, not to RL :) ... now
> a rigger (with VCR 3) can get more shots out them, depending on how
> rapidly s/he can hold the trigger down (IOW, the intiative score :) ...
> s/he can get 960+ rounds per minute out of an autocannon and 1,200 out of
> a minigun ... on average, s/he'll get 720/900 rounds per minute though
> ... IMO, the Minigun is effective (when combined with Armor Piercing
> rounds) and has an appropriate ROF ...

Well when ever they actualy FIRE an autocanon or minigun in warfare they
only fire off a few hundred rounds per minute but those rounds are packed
into a few very short burst. The instantanious fire rate might be three
thousand rounds per minute but the avg over a minute was only a few
hundred. Part of the reason is controlling the recoil and the heat build
up in the gun. Another is the limited ammo supply you can carry. Combat
Aircraft only carry a few hundred rounds for their guns. And finaly do
you really need to fire off 40 rounds at a target when 12 will kill it?

To bring this back to game terms and the RoF that you calculated for each
weapon. Well that might be the avg RoF but the instantanios RoF during
each burst would be higher. I doubt the rules are meaning that you fire
one continious burst for 20 rounds. In fact the way the rules only count
the number of rounds you fired THAT turn for recoil makes me think they
are concidering short bursts with you stoping and getting the gun back
under controll between rounds. At least its a good retcon for the low
cycle rates. :)

Thomas Price
aka The Bookworm
thomas.m.price@*******.edu
tmprice@***********.com
Message no. 68
From: The Bookworm <Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 14:14:51 -0500
On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Gurth wrote:
> 2,100 or 4,200 rpm, selectable by the pilot depending on whether
> it's used for ground attack or air-to-air firing.

Well that also depends on whether it has only one or both hydrolic motors
running to power the thing. The a-10 has independend hydrolic systems for
the right and left side of the plane for survivability. The gun feed is
run off both sides. It still takes a secounds for the gun to get up to
speed so the RoF varies even within a speed setting.

> > Its a good thing concidering the pilot
> > only has about five hundred rounds total in the ammunition drum.
> 1350 rounds at maximum, though standard load is 1174 rounds.
> It shows, but you need to get your numbers right ;)

I went looking at the USAF fact sheet and about 5 other A-10 sites and
NONE of them listed the ammo capacity that i could find. I dont have my
reference books with me here at work so i was working from my *faulty*
memory. :)

Thomas Price
aka The Bookworm
thomas.m.price@*******.edu
tmprice@***********.com
Message no. 69
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 18:55:33 EDT
In a message dated 7/21/98 10:14:20 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.COM writes:

> >There is perhaps another weapon that could be put in place of the
> Victory, it
> >would require a Medium Turret, and would take up all of the weapon
> points in
> >it. How about an ANDREWS ?!? The MBT may not be able to recharge it,
> but an
> >ANDREWS holds 40-50 shots in battery storage. And this would give the
> MBT a
> >NAVAL CATEGORY WEAPON.
> >
> >-Herc
> >-------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
>
> You realize we're talking about a -plane-? I don't think I want to see
> an airplane with Naval Class guns ... IMO, If you try to mount naval
> class guns on a non-naval class vehicle, they should suffer from double
> normal recoil (which does apply in this case since the ADNREWS is a laser
> type weapon) ...

Yep ... why not ... and a note ... the ANDREWS is a battlefield -LASER- and as
such suffers from no recoil at all ... the only problem is recharging the
battery which either requires the vehicle be in idle mode or hooked up to
something which can recharge it.

And laser weapons, again, do not have any recoil at all.

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

> Btw Mike, I was told to ask you about "Beauty"
Message no. 70
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 18:56:46 EDT
In a message dated 7/21/98 10:14:20 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.COM writes:

> an airplane with Naval Class guns ... IMO, If you try to mount naval
> class guns on a non-naval class vehicle, they should suffer from double
> normal recoil (which does apply in this case since the ADNREWS is a laser
> type weapon) ...
>
> Btw Mike, I was told to ask you aout "Beauty"

I'll get some more information on Beauty later on ... probably tomorrow.

> D.Ghost
> (aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
> o/` Trideo killed the Video Star ... o/`
Message no. 71
From: "Ubiratan P. Alberton" <ubiratan@**.HOMESHOPPING.COM.BR>
Subject: Re: Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall )
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 16:01:00 -0300
At 12:53 21/07/98 EDT, you wrote:
>In a message dated 7/21/1998 9:24:55 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
>Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU writes:
>
>>
>> > Of course unloading a Victory autocannon gives you a starting damage
code
>> > 32 D + 4 levels of additional staging and then would be modified as
above
>>
>> giving you a target number of 8-12 after armor. Much harder to save
>> against and in very in line with a weapon designed to take out MBT with
>> one 12 round burst.
>>
>Ah, for some reason, I get the feeling the topic of -Skill- is being missed
>here. Successes on the part of the shooter are applied to this, and thus
>remove the effect of "armor" to a certain extent (depending upon the success
>test of course).
>
>-K
>

Also, I seem to recall that some book said that raising the damage level
above D gives +2
to the power of the weapon instead, so the autocannon's FA damage would be
40D, not
32D +4 levels os staging... (well, it does make a difference when the
target is a MBT...)

Bira

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Southerner's Rant (was: Stonewall ), 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!