StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I just hope Abrigor makes it. Come on, his knowledge will be crucial for making Hell more militaristically formidable.

I kinda want to see him captured, then shown a nice presentation of how fucked he was from the very beginning. Video emerging from the hellmouth, video of him escaping the MLRS barrage, etc...

Shroom Man 777 wrote:I just hope Abrigor makes it. Come on, his knowledge will be crucial for making Hell more militaristically formidable.

That is if Satan doesn't kill him for his failure.

I kinda want to see him captured, then shown a nice presentation of how fucked he was from the very beginning. Video emerging from the hellmouth, video of him escaping the MLRS barrage, etc...

I would like to see that.Just imagine the look on his face.

Also i was wondering, now that we have the ability to open portals is it possible to assassinate Satan?

DarthShady wrote:Also i was wondering, now that we have the ability to open portals is it possible to assassinate Satan?

Portals can only be opened to the location of individuals the psychic has already mentally connected with. There probably aren't any humans to connect with in Satan's palace. Of course once Broomstick gets the resistance going there's no reason why the humans can't start lobbing random mortar shells at Dis.

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Come on, his knowledge will be crucial for making Hell more militaristically formidable.

Regardless of whether Abigor makes it we will see some signs of the demons getting a clue and doing what they can to modernise their force structure and intelligence gathering. The demons aren't stupid, as we've seen with Abigor they are in fact highly intelligent, it's just that have very little practice at applying that intelligence in a systematic way (except in constructing convoluted multi-millenial plots to bring down rival demons). It's true that the humans have a huge head start and are used to operating on much shorter timescales, but (my guess is) when you're starting from virtually nothing even modest improvements in doctrine and equipment can make a very noticeable difference in effectiveness.

Brain_Caster wrote:

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: But it is also extremely likely that if you die in Hell, even if you haven't died before, you are dead for good.

How so? As of right now we don't even now what keeps people running in hell after they died on Earth. If they can form a body from nothing after their old one get's destroyed once, who says they can't do it again? For all we know, whenever you die in hell you might simply reform somewhere else in hell.

And if that isn't the case and any hell-deaths are permanent, wouldn't that mean that you can get out of "eternal" torture simply by killing yourself? If so, I'd expect a whole lot of people to have taken that option.

How does one kill themselves in Hell? Apparently their recuperative powers are such that they can withstand chronic near-drowning, and the sharpest implements available to humans are the spikes of questionable pointiness they're nailed to the racks with. To kill yourself, you'd have to find someone to brutally murder you through repeated stabbing (or piss off a demon enough that they kill and eat you, instead of returning you to the racks.) When you consider that, if you can get away from the racks, then it suddenly becomes much more appealing to spend the next 10,000 years getting lost in the shuffle. Hell's apparently a very big place, and the jailers are very complacent.

Brain_Caster wrote:

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: But it is also extremely likely that if you die in Hell, even if you haven't died before, you are dead for good.

How so? As of right now we don't even now what keeps people running in hell after they died on Earth. If they can form a body from nothing after their old one get's destroyed once, who says they can't do it again? For all we know, whenever you die in hell you might simply reform somewhere else in hell.

And if that isn't the case and any hell-deaths are permanent, wouldn't that mean that you can get out of "eternal" torture simply by killing yourself? If so, I'd expect a whole lot of people to have taken that option.

The energy required to create the new body in hell is a function of a very common calculation, and is the equivalent to the energy liberated from when that body's mass is annihilated in a matter/anti-matter detonation. THAT is the only place that the new body can come from--massive amounts of energy, which are presumably generated by the process through which the soul translates from one dimension to the next--if they are not outright inherent in the soul and the energy is even greater than that, with some bleeding off during transition.

You see how reason applies?

It certainly shows why humans are a useful source of power; our souls have, at the minimum, the capability inside of them to generate as much energy as a 50 to 100kg matter/anti-matter reaction.

Actually I would frankly not be surprised if a mortal getting killed in Hell releases all of that energy destructively, though I think the chances of it are low--it's more likely that the energy comes from aspect of the dimensional translation rather than being integral to humans at some level we can't detect yet.

JCady wrote:
The British did a side-by-side comparison of the .50-cal Browning and the .50-cal Vickers and found the Vickers superior, primarily in reliability.

So why is the British built L111A1 is a Browning not a Vickers? I don't know the Vickers but I do know the Browning. There's nothing wrong with it. The Vickers may be marginally better, but practically it simply doesn't matter.

Sorry, double post.

R011 wrote:

JCady wrote:
The British did a side-by-side comparison of the .50-cal Browning and the .50-cal Vickers and found the Vickers superior, primarily in reliability.

So why is the British built L111A1 is a Browning not a Vickers? I don't know the Vickers but I do know the Browning. There's nothing wrong with it. The Vickers may be marginally better, but practically it simply doesn't matter.

Because they were comparing the Vickers to the water cooled version of the Browning. The L111A1 is the air cooled version and occupies a different tactical niche; the tactical niche of the water-cooled MG is not very relevant on the modern battlefield, but comes back in spades in The War On Damnation.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:THAT is the only place that the new body can come from--massive amounts of energy, which are presumably generated by the process through which the soul translates from one dimension to the next--if they are not outright inherent in the soul and the energy is even greater than that, with some bleeding off during transition.

That's the crux of the matter, isn't it? Is it the process of dieing and going to hell that creates the energy, or is the soul itself some kind of metaphysical power plant able to provide that energy?

In the first case, yeah, I guess death in hell means the game's over. (Though that would bring up the question why they don't need to eat if there isn't another constant energy source to keep them running - not to mention how the biomass lost due to injury is replaced seemingly from nothing).

But in the second case it seems logical to conclude that further re-creations of one's body are, in theory at least, possible. In practice it might be more difficult.

Funny thought: Maybe the soul does in fact generate the required energy, but it simply requires some time to provide enough to make a new body so shortly after doing it once. So a few years or decades after the human invasion of hell all the human casualties of that war might suddenly be back... and now the army owes even more people money.

R011 wrote:

JCady wrote:
The British did a side-by-side comparison of the .50-cal Browning and the .50-cal Vickers and found the Vickers superior, primarily in reliability.

So why is the British built L111A1 is a Browning not a Vickers? I don't know the Vickers but I do know the Browning. There's nothing wrong with it. The Vickers may be marginally better, but practically it simply doesn't matter.

It would only be an educated guess, but I think that the Vickers went out of production quite some time before the Browning. So when the army decided that it needed an HMG after all, then it would make more sense to adopt the Browning, which brought the benefit of commonality with other NATO armies.

It seems to me that injury in Hell is what's producing energy. When a human in Hell is in a wounded state, or simply in pain, it generates the energy that the demons need. So when one of the warden demons is making his rounds and casually disemboweling the the crucified humans, he's actually increasing the efficiency at which they're generating energy. It'd be like lubing up the bearings on a windmill so that it spins easier and makes more electricity: just part of regular maintenance.

I would suggest that, further, the environs of Hell are so designed so that even if humans escape, they're still in at least minor pain. They're still stepping on jagged rocks every once in a while; they're still breathing in those noxious fumes. They can probably ignore it and minimize it, but by being in pain and injured (though minor and probably instantly healed), they're still generating energy for the demons.

It may be that a human who has not yet died, when he enters hell, increases his potential of "life energy", so when he dies he may simply translate up to the next dimension (if one exists).

JCady wrote: Because they were comparing the Vickers to the water cooled version of the Browning. The L111A1 is the air cooled version and occupies a different tactical niche; the tactical niche of the water-cooled MG is not very relevant on the modern battlefield, but comes back in spades in The War On Damnation.

But if the Vickers is so superior to the Browning then surely it shouldn't have been hard to make an air-cooled heavy barrel version in .50 BMG?

Some other information on the 50 Vickers courtesy of Tony Williams excellent site (Link):

- While the RN test favoured the Vickers, the later RAF test was inconclusive. They ended up opting for a version of the rifle caliber M1919 in .303 inch. During the war, the RAF did use a few .50 inch guns in bombers - the Browning.
- The RN tested the M1924 version, not the M2 version.
- The Vickers fired a lower powered cartridge. There's certainly no guarantee that it would handle the more powerful BMG round as easily as the one for which it was designed.

In other words, we can spend a great deal of time and effort on a weapon which may not work at all, or get on with it and build a gun we know works very well now.

JN1 wrote:
It would only be an educated guess, but I think that the Vickers went out of production quite some time before the Browning. So when the army decided that it needed an HMG after all, then it would make more sense to adopt the Browning, which brought the benefit of commonality with other NATO armies.

Bingo!

The situation hasn't really changed here. The factors which mitigated in favour of the air cooled .50 BMG today mitigate in favour of the water cooled version (or even other current .50 BMG weapons) here.

Indeed, I'm not so sure that we need to go back to water cooled MG's. They may be better in this case in some applications, but air cooled MG's are still quite devastating. The French Army used air cooled Mle1914 Hotchkiss guns firing from twenty-four round strips and stopped the Germans dead. They worked well enough that it replaced other the MG models with which they atarted the war and kept them in service through both world wars.

JN1 wrote: It would only be an educated guess, but I think that the Vickers went out of production quite some time before the Browning. So when the army decided that it needed an HMG after all, then it would make more sense to adopt the Browning, which brought the benefit of commonality with other NATO armies.

The Vickers gun fired a 12.7x81mm cartridge which was one of the weakest heavy machine gun cartridges to ever enter service. Because it was low powered and yet very much heavier then a 7.62mm gun it was never used very widely. Once the RN ditched it for 20mm weapons and the British Army stopped using tanks armed purely with machine guns, it was effectively dead. It was never officially used as far as I'm aware, as a multipurpose ground gun arming things like trucks and infantry weapons platoons as was done with the M2

The Browning meanwhile fires a 12.7x99mm cartridge with nearly TWICE the muzzle energy and better ballistics. This made it a significantly more credible anti aircraft (both from the ground and other aircraft) weapon which was able to remain at least somewhat effective throughout WW2. Any slight reliability advantage the Vickers might have is totally irrelevant compared to the fact that the Browning is far more powerful, and it and its ammo are still in mass production. I’d be willing to bet the only real reason why the Vickers is more reliable is precisely because it’s so much weaker.

If we want to resurrect a dead machine gun, then the FN BRG-15 firing 15.5x106mm would be far more logical then a Vickers. That thing is just monstrous, with twice the muzzle energy of a .50cal Browning and better firepower then even the 14.5mm KPV. In firing trials the ball ammo was able to pierce the side of a BMP-1, an 18mm thick steel plate. IIRC at close range it could actually pierce both sides. The gun had double belt feeds and besides ball, AP, APDS and explosive shell ammo was developed for it. FN stopped short of production only because the Cold War ended and they decided to scale back R&D and divert funding towards another outdated relic, but one more likely to sell, the P90 submachine gun. Adding a water cooling jacket would be no trouble at all, and FN could get it into production long before anyone could strip down a museum piece Vickers gun and draw up plans for it.

It was never officially used as far as I'm aware, as a multipurpose ground gun arming things like trucks and infantry weapons platoons as was done with the M2

The LRDG did apparently use some on their trucks, but as you say that was not done on an official basis.

If we want to resurrect a dead machine gun, then the FN BRG-15 firing 15.5x106mm would be far more logical then a Vickers.

Just had a look at that on a couple of websites and it is a pretty impressive gun. It would certainly make a good baldrick killer.

Sea Skimmer wrote:If we want to resurrect a dead machine gun, then the FN BRG-15 firing 15.5x106mm would be far more logical then a Vickers. That thing is just monstrous, with twice the muzzle energy of a .50cal Browning and better firepower then even the 14.5mm KPV. In firing trials the ball ammo was able to pierce the side of a BMP-1, an 18mm thick steel plate. IIRC at close range it could actually pierce both sides. The gun had double belt feeds and besides ball, AP, APDS and explosive shell ammo was developed for it. FN stopped short of production only because the Cold War ended and they decided to scale back R&D and divert funding towards another outdated relic, but one more likely to sell, the P90 submachine gun. Adding a water cooling jacket would be no trouble at all, and FN could get it into production long before anyone could strip down a museum piece Vickers gun and draw up plans for it.

Given Stuarts earlier comments, it appears that very light armour will be highly effective against Baldricks. Would this be a suitable weapon to fit on lightly armoured vehicles? It's probably way too big for general infantry use...

While it had a tripod option the BRG-15 was more or less specifically designed for very light armored vehicles which couldn’t reasonably mount auto cannons. The idea was its firepower would let them outmatch various light Soviet vehicles like the BRDM-2 and BTR-60/70/80 series which had 14.5mm KPVs. However I really don’t think its necessary to bring production of any model of machine gun, the .50cal M2 with or without water cooling will be fine. All new guns will be produced with quick change barrels, and kits already exist to convert any existing gun to have that capability. Getting more of these machine guns into service NOW matters far more then any effort to begin producing an uber gun six months or a year down the line by which point production of other weapons will make it mostly irrelevant.

I suppose eventually these questions will be answered.

Can somebody that was dead and in hell come back to Earth?

Really with the pilots in Hell I would think the number one priority would be getting some SF teams into Hell so they can be briefed by the pilots and then getting the pilots out of there. Pilots are not trained in covert operations like Green Berets our SEALS are. Basically let the professionals get briefed on the situation and let them take over and get the pilots back so they can do what they do best which is flying. Now this situation might change if they figure out that the dead pilots have rapid healing but humans that step into hell from a portal do not. Basically the point of SERE training with pilots is to escape and get rescued not start a insurgency, let the snake eaters handle that stuff. However in the story it seems like nobody has even asked the question about why we are not bringing the pilots back through the portal. A group of 6 SEALS can raise a hell of a lot more ruckus in HELL than 6 pilots IMHO.

Brovane wrote:Really with the pilots in Hell I would think the number one priority would be getting some SF teams into Hell so they can be briefed by the pilots and then getting the pilots out of there. Pilots are not trained in covert operations like Green Berets our SEALS are.

Very good point. If nothing else, hauling half of them out there to substitute 3 SEALS* gives you a number of experiments:

1. Can live, extensively trained humans survive in hell for extended periods of time? How well?
2. Can 'dead' humans return to earth-plane?
3. If so, do 'live' humans gain the powers of dead ones?
4. Do 'dead' humans lose regeneration and need to eat back on earth?

Oh, and if the pilots survive, you can interrogate them at your leisure.

*If you need a balance

Starglider wrote:Regardless of whether Abigor makes it we will see some signs of the demons getting a clue and doing what they can to modernise their force structure and intelligence gathering. The demons aren't stupid, as we've seen with Abigor they are in fact highly intelligent, it's just that have very little practice at applying that intelligence in a systematic way (except in constructing convoluted multi-millenial plots to bring down rival demons).

That's an association fallacy. This is basically what you're saying is: Abigor is a Baldrick General. Abigor is intelligent. Therefore Baldrick Generals are intelligent. This does not compute.

That's not to say I don't think many of them are smart and quick learners, it's just we only have one Baldrick General to go by and that's definitely not enough to get an idea of the average Baldrick Generals intelligence, and for all we know Abigor is as smart as they come.

Also, can someone explain to me why we can't just make a new .458 Battlerifle? It would seem to me that whilst rechambering M1's and M14's is a more permanent quick-fix than the Beowulf rounds, it still seems like there's a better choice out there. Going along with this, instead of just rechambering all those M1's and M14's, why don't we just modify the EBR and DMR lines for making .458 versions of those rifles, after all the M14 is a direct descendant from the M1 and the EBR and DMR are newer versions of the M14.

Finally, [Groan Enducingly Bad Pun]I hope Broomy and crew give those Baldricks Hell for me![/GEBP]

General Schatten wrote:Also, can someone explain to me why we can't just make a new .458 Battlerifle? It would seem to me that whilst rechambering M1's and M14's is a more permanent quick-fix than the Beowulf rounds, it still seems like there's a better choice out there. Going along with this, instead of just rechambering all those M1's and M14's, why don't we just modify the EBR and DMR lines for making .458 versions of those rifles, after all the M14 is a direct descendant from the M1 and the EBR and DMR are newer versions of the M14.

The M14 DMR is an rather expensive tricked-out M-14 designed for squad marksman use, while the Sage Enhanced Battle Rifle is simply an M-14 action remounted in a fancy new receiver. It makes no sense to issue a precision DMR as a battle rifle, and the EBR is much more expensive than a standard M-14 while offering no real benefits save the provision of an integrated RIS, which is downright counterproductive in a time when we desperately need to crank out the maximum number of rifles possible.

General Schatten wrote:
Also, can someone explain to me why we can't just make a new .458 Battlerifle? It would seem to me that whilst rechambering M1's and M14's is a more permanent quick-fix than the Beowulf rounds, it still seems like there's a better choice out there. Going along with this, instead of just rechambering all those M1's and M14's, why don't we just modify the EBR and DMR lines for making .458 versions of those rifles, after all the M14 is a direct descendant from the M1 and the EBR and DMR are newer versions of the M14.

Because we need something enormously simple and rugged and reliable, and that is the Garand, which can be easily mass produced by the tens of millions. Modern rifles which have components made out of things other than wood and steel simply aren't going to cut it.

It could take eighteen months to two years to design a whole new gun, test and refine it to an acceptable standard, and then get it into mass production and into the hands of combat troops. That’s how long it took to get new equipment into service in WW2 anyway; I really can’t see how we’d do better this time around. Most rifle and machine gun designs have historically taken much longer then that to develop, ten years is not uncommon to create a completely new gun.

An AR-15 chambered for .458 SOCOM is a preexisting weapon, it’s been tested and it works, most of its components and its ammo are already in production and we can convert existing weapons to that standard via swapping upper receivers. Remember this is discussion for planning a wartime mobilization, not figuring out what would be absolutely ideal, obviously a whole new gun would be better then any modification of an existing one. Most likely work would begin on new rifle designs, heck civilian manufactures would do it if the Army or Marines don’t, but that’s a long term project unlikely to yield results during the current war.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Because we need something enormously simple and rugged and reliable, and that is the Garand, which can be easily mass produced by the tens of millions. Modern rifles which have components made out of things other than wood and steel simply aren't going to cut it.

What on earth makes you think we can adapt a Garand to magazine loading and a whole different cartridge any faster then we can stamp out AR-15s, which we already have factories building in multiple countries? Rugged reliability is less important then numbers, NOW, and frankly AR-15 reliability is more then good enough against an enemy with such limited ranged weaponry. Seriously now, a dozen new factories could download AR-15 plans off the internet and start building the things while gunsmiths at Aberdeen are still arguing over what kind of feed lip to use.