Yansuf

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

Re: Imperial Ground Equipment Interesting. A few quibles: 1. In Star Trek OS they did once show starfleet using a mortar, it was in the episode where Kirk had to battle the lizard commander. Before the "superior" aliens stopped the battle and set up the duel (tittle of the episode I think) Kirk fired a mortar at the enemy on the colony world. 2. In Menagiare (I cannot spell that) they used a "cannon" to try and blast into the mountain. 3. They rarely showed spacesuits in TOS, and I don't think that they ever did in the later ones. The explaination as I understood it was a "Life Support Belt" that produced a low power force field around the user, within which livable conditions were maintained. If so, it should work vs. RBC effects. However, overall I liked the article. On a related note, in 1978 when Traveller first came out, I noticed that my National Guard unit could have easily beaten an Imperial infantry unit. They fixed this later with the addition of reasonably advanced weapons in the supplement "Mercenary"; but I still found GDW inability to comprehend weapons effects to be amusing. But that is another subject.

Re: Greatest Post-Apoc Film of All Time Damnation Alley wasn't bad, if you never read the book. As usual, the movie didn't come close. Six String Samuari wasn't bad either, if you like that sort of camp; it didn't take itself seriously.

Re: Fictional Cities I have used both real cities and fictional ones. The fictional one has several advantages, 1. You can make the mayor, police chief, etc. and no one objects if they are corrupt, fools, or paragons, which I have found some people will do when you use real people. Of course you can use a real city with fictional people, but the fictional city is less confining. 2. You don't have to worry about a player who knows more about the city than you (but whose character doesn't) pointing out mistakes. "What, Brooklyn and Manhattan have different DAs?" 3. You can put whatever you want in your fictional city. You want a large military base nearby, you put it there. You want a nuclear power plant for the terrorists to attack, it is where ever you want. Etc. There are disadvantages too of course: the principal one being the work of setting up the basic city. You don't have to fill everything in at first though. If you don't know how a city should go together your best bet is probably to take a real city, move it, remove any obvious landmarks, and modify from there. One example: take Buffalo NY and move it to the west coast. Play around a little so no one will recognize the basic city was Buffalo, and there you are.

Re: Archery Ballistics

Re: Archery Ballistics I think that it would be more appropriate to take a limitation on the armor, half effect (or less) vs cutting and stabbing weapons. That could be a -1/2 or even a -1 limitation.

Re: Archery Ballistics Modern fiber (kevlar, spectra, etc.) armor does not work well against arrows and knives, I don't know why. And I don't think anyone else does either; I have heard many conflicting answers. Some are very reasonable, but I don't believe anyone knows if they are right. (BTW, my PhD is in engineering.) Based on historical evidence, some old fashioned soft armor did work well against arrows. Gambesons were widely used by the Crusaders and troops of the Kingdoms of Outremer, and were very good at stopping arrows, based on historical accounts. A gambeson is basically a very thick quilt. I can say that the question of penetration depends not only on the energy of the projectile, but also on how much energy goes into the target and how much is used to deform the projectile. Based on my experience in the SCA with bows and crossbows, crossbow bolts penetrate much better than arrows for the same "muzzle energy." I believe that this is due to the energy lost in "flexing" the arrow, but I have never tried to test this, so it's just a guess.

Re: US Military .45 Pistols The US military normally uses "hardball" ammo, it does not break up. Fragmenting ammo (which is available commercially) violates the Geneva Convention. Stories of the 5.56x45mm US ammo "tumbling" are generally untrue; it can happen if the round hits something hard at the right angle, but it is quite rare. Hollowpoints are designed to expand and thus present more frontal area to the target, resulting in more energy transfer. There are special rounds available such as the glasser that actually fragment in the target. Within the past year there has been discussion about a new "blended metal" technology that supposedly expands rapidly in flesh (at living body temperature) but will not expand when it his anything else. If so (and I have seen credible reports that it does work, although I find it hard to believe) it would seem to be an ideal round, except for the minor fact that it definitely does violate the Geneva Convention. The US military has banned troops from buying them.

Re: US Military .45 Pistols Interestingly, a study that I saw (but cannot link to, it was years ago) found that the .44 magnum was not a very good man-stopper, the bullet usually went right through. The .357 magnum came out best in that study, with the .41 magnum and the .45 auto next. The 9mm luger didn't do well.

Re: US Military .45 Pistols The 9mm parabellum (called the 9mm lugar in the US) was developed in Germany, either at the start of the 20th century or just before. Since the German army still carried swords for a while after that, I don't believe your account above is accurate. It is a great story though. (On the other hand, in the late 1970's or early 1980's an article in Armor Magazine (US) did (tongue in cheek?) suggest removing the HMG from the commander's hatch on platoon leader's tanks, and issueing them sabers so that they would concentrate on leading their platoons rather than using the MG.) The US adopted the 9mm because of NATO ammo standardization; just about all the other nations in NATO (at the time) used it. The US agreed to this in the 1950's or 60's, but said it would continue to use the .45s until they needed to be replaced (the US army didn't buy any standard .45s after WWII there were so many aquired then); so it wasn't until the mid to late 80's that the new 9mm started being issued in the US Army. The other services followed later. The .45 will NOT penetrate any decent body armor, unless it has special purpose AP ammo. But then, neither will the 9mm, the 10mm, the .357 magnum, etc. The more powerfull rounds can cause injury through soft body armor, certainly heavy bruises, sometimes even broken ribs. But as a general rule, if you are using a pistol, and your enemy has armor, shoot for the unarmored area.

Re: DC inspired by TV The Avengers (1960's British TV) series would work well for Dark Champions. Then there is also the Man From Uncle. In the "Buffyverse", don't forget Angel (ran 5 years.)

Re: 2300 AD Kafers?! As I recall the kafer "backplate" gave very little protection, it would not stop a pistol bullet, ever. In addition to a speed and intellegence boost, Kafers seemed to get "teamwork" after they got smart. They also got the equivalent of several pluses to their CV. This should probably be done as minuses to their CV normally, that go away after they "get smart." I used to GM A 2300 campaigne, and the PCs spent some time on Aurora fighting the Kafers. Their general rule was: when attacking Kafers, if you cannot gain a decisive advantage in one minute, retreat and attack again later. It usually worked. Of corse, you had to be able to move fast enough to break contact.

Re: Space elevators

Re: Random SF Science Questions Standard firearms are "projectile weapons propelled by gas expansion from a chemical reaction." As has been mentioned in a previous post, these are a mature technology and are efficient. In fact, they are so good that the Gyrojet company went out of business; its products couldn't compete. The advantage of electro-magnetic propelled projectile weapons (rail guns, coil guns, or "gauss weapons") is potentially much higher muzzle velocities. The maximum muzzle velocity of "gas expansion" firearms is limited by the "detonation velocity" of the propellent. The gauss weapons have no such limitation. I believe current rail guns (in laboratory) can achieve two miles per second muzzle velocity, actual guns can only (in practice) get about half that. While both can be improved, the potential for the gauss weapons is much more, which is why the US (and probably many other nations) are working on it. However, this is not important for small arms. Current US research is designed for improved tank/anti-tank weapons. It is likely gauss weapons will be field tested on armore vehicles in a decade or so. Of course, Lasers were field tested on a USN Destroyer in the late 1990's. I believe the reason that they were not brought into service was reliability problems in the nautical environment.

Re: Random SF Science Questions GDW in its game 2300AD had several books about a moon of a gas giant that was habitable. The moon was called Aurora, it was tidally locked, but the "twilight zone" was habitable. I never actually checked their science, but it was my understanding that it was valid.

Re: Classic Sci-Fi Novels for Scenario Ideas There are many more novels such as the "Storm over Warlock" series (2 books?), "The Eye of the Monster", which is set in the same universe as the "Solar Queen" and "Star Born"; and several novels whose names I cannot recall offhand that had a city with "the depple" which was a ghetto for refugees from a great war, posibly the one that was referred to in "Beast Master." BTW, GURPS Space seems to use a lot of Ms. Norton's SF civilization for its background in the basic rules.

Re: Classic Sci-Fi Novels for Scenario Ideas I am not familiar with that one. Norton did a book entittled Star Rangers; and Asimov did a juvenile series in the 50's that I think was called "Space Ranger". about a character named "Lucky Star." Is either of those what you mean?

Re: Thoughts on the Secret Service questions The department of Justice was formed in 1870, but the "US Marshal Service" was not formed until 1969, according to the history on their website. Yes, congress could have left things as they were in 1901, but there was a major argument then. Basically it was "why are our presidents being killed when European heads of state are not?" The answer that was given (which can be argued, but I believe it) was that the heads of state in Europe had professional guards. So congress decided the president should too. Actually the secret serice didn't get its mandate to guard the president until 1902, it took congress that long to decide. While I do not know why they did not choose to use the military (probably the marines) I have always thought that it was part of the "don't use the military for law enforcement" mindset that led to the posse comitatus act.

Re: Thoughts on the Secret Service questions Actually, the current secret service was formed in 1865, just after the civil war. Its mission was to supress couterfeiting, it is part of the treasury department. The first head of the service had been head of Union Intelligence during the war, which had informally been called the secret service. I thought that was the origin of the name, but I have never seen any authoritative explaination. BTW, The US Marshal Service did not exist yet; there were US Marshals and deputies, but there was no central organization, each marshal was completely independent of the others. (The service was formed in 1969.) That is why in 1901 when congress wanted a professional force to protect the president, their choice was to use the military, use the secret service, or start a new agency.

Re: Space elevators Actually, there is another version of this which is what I was referring to. In this version the satellite has four "arms" which are extended in the same plane as its orbit. The arms rotate so that the arm at the bottom is moving slower than the satellite, as I recall (it has been years since I last looked at this) the bottom could have a speed with relation to the Earth's surface of less than mach 1.5, at an altitude of 20 or so km. With the mean altitude of the satellite at about 8000 km, the maximum cable length is less than a third required for the elevator. Here is one reference: http://www.homoexcelsior.com/omega.db/datum/megascale_engineering/sky_hook/183

Re: Different Militaries working together; Alien Wars

Re: Help with a character The times when I have seen someone make an origami animal, it took significant time. (Based on a turn is 12 seconds.) He might need an "extra time" limitation, unless the paper is prefolded.

Re: Space elevators I still think the skyhook is a better idea. Cheaper to build, lower strength to mass ratio required for the cables.

Re: Favorite general types of SF weapons Depends on the genre. When I GM'd a 2300AD campaign all the PCs used projectile weapons of various type, even though lasers and sonics were available. My favorite NPC did like sonic weapons though. In a GURPs SF campaign (set in the late 21st century, advanced spacecraft but no FTL so restricted to the solar system) I was in my character used lasers, sonics and a gauss SMG. (His background was that he was an ex-space force EVA Commando, and I decided lasers were best for space combat.) Other players tended to use Blasters (in GURPS blasters are particle beams), needlers and sonic stunners. At least one other PC used a gauss SMG at times. In a Traveler Campaign I was in (this was long after they added advanced small arms to the system) most players used advanced slug throwers of various kinds. In a "Star Trek" campaign that I GM'd everyone had phasers of course.

Re: Las Vegas 5E Thank you.