StarDestroyer.Net BBS

impatrick4life wrote:have an AC blow up Yahweh, and maybe transmit video footage of it to the White House and have B.O. remark how "it looks just like Call of Duty."

Too bad it's awful dangerous to fly an AC around with the angels and whatnot, but, I wish it was possible.

I think it's impossible for more than one reason. Obama said last month, "With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation."

I like how characters have generally been treated with realism in this story, and Obama making a Call of Duty reference is about as likely as Robert E. Lee understanding the tactical implications of stealth bombers.

SCRawl wrote:It also just occurred to me: maybe the angels can "charge" their arrows in the same manner as they charge their melee weapons. I still can't see them penetrating (or even seriously threatening to penetrate) modern armoured vehicles, but they might be a little more effective than just normal materials.

They can, yes. However, any realistic level of armor piercing capability is pretty much out of court. The maximum energy that can be put into an arrow (even allowing for the added size of the angels and some weird materials science) just isn't anywhere close enough. Arrows are just too light and don't move fast enough. The best an arrow can do (before it starts to disintegrate due to structural issues) is 110 meters per second. An APDS round moves at 1,650 meters per second. In weight terms, an arrow weighs 0.026 kilograms, an APDS round 4.6 kilograms.

The idea is that somebody struck by a charged arrow would have that arrow discharge into the victim - rather like a taser on steroids.

You can make arrows heavier; crossbows scale up pretty far. But I do agree that you're not going to get significant anti-armor capability out of an arrow, not against tanks. Against Humvees, maybe, but not anything that would really be classed as an AFV by a modern army.

Simon_Jester wrote:You can make arrows heavier; crossbows scale up pretty far. But I do agree that you're not going to get significant anti-armor capability out of an arrow, not against tanks. Against Humvees, maybe, but not anything that would really be classed as an AFV by a modern army.

What Humvee we talking about here? The old bare frame ones with plastic tarp doors?

Simon_Jester wrote:You can make arrows heavier; crossbows scale up pretty far.

Not enough to overcome a 15-fold difference in speed and a 176-fold difference in mass. Even if we went to a much smaller round, say a 25mm APDS we have a ten-fold difference in mass and velocity. M2 protection can keep those out.

Not to mention, a projectile's energy varies with the square of the velocity, so the energy difference between the arrow and the smaller armor piercing round is one-thousand fold.

Stuart wrote:

Simon_Jester wrote:You can make arrows heavier; crossbows scale up pretty far.

Not enough to overcome a 15-fold difference in speed and a 176-fold difference in mass. Even if we went to a much smaller round, say a 25mm APDS we have a ten-fold difference in mass and velocity. M2 protection can keep those out.

Yes, which is why I said: "Against Humvees, maybe, but not against anything that would really be classed as an AFV by a modern army."

Now, I admit "anything that would really be classed as an AFV by a modern army" is ambiguous. That said, I'd think it would reasonably be read as including the M2, assuming that by M2 you mean the Bradley.

Simon_Jester wrote:

Stuart wrote:

Simon_Jester wrote:You can make arrows heavier; crossbows scale up pretty far.

Not enough to overcome a 15-fold difference in speed and a 176-fold difference in mass. Even if we went to a much smaller round, say a 25mm APDS we have a ten-fold difference in mass and velocity. M2 protection can keep those out.

Yes, which is why I said: "Against Humvees, maybe, but not against anything that would really be classed as an AFV by a modern army."

Now, I admit "anything that would really be classed as an AFV by a modern army" is ambiguous. That said, I'd think it would reasonably be read as including the M2, assuming that by M2 you mean the Bradley.

He means the M2HB, the Ma Deuce, aka .50 caliber machine gun.

If that is the case, then fair enough. Then again, I am unaware of any Humvee variant that is protected against .50 BMG. Do such variants exist?

What Stuart meant is that the M2 Bradley is protected against 25mm APDS rounds which are over ten times as massive and 10 times as fast as an angelic arrow.

It is a bit awkwardly said, but I guess it he could be referring to the M2 Bradley. But that seems unlikely, given how we were talking about dealing with Humvees and how the Bradley is now M3. (CFV is M3, IFV is M2)

But regardless, here's a fancy picture that shows protection levels!

Stu, would 1 CW Army have a use for an 18inch howitzer firing concrete penetrating shells, because I think I can find one? If it can be gotten to where it is needed it could be used to penetrate the walls of the Emerald City.

Chamale wrote:

impatrick4life wrote:have an AC blow up Yahweh, and maybe transmit video footage of it to the White House and have B.O. remark how "it looks just like Call of Duty."

Too bad it's awful dangerous to fly an AC around with the angels and whatnot, but, I wish it was possible.

I think it's impossible for more than one reason. Obama said last month, "With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation."

I like how characters have generally been treated with realism in this story, and Obama making a Call of Duty reference is about as likely as Robert E. Lee understanding the tactical implications of stealth bombers.

You got my point, though, didn't you? It was just an impossible wish

And, actually, I think Robert wouldn't have too hard of a time understanding that one. What he seemed to have trouble with was basic tactics. It wouldn't be too hard to get the idea of a stealth bomber down; one could paint it in much the same light as a cavalry raid, albeit with a practically one-hundred-percent success rate. /rabbit trail

JN1 wrote:Stu, would 1 CW Army have a use for an 18inch howitzer firing concrete penetrating shells, because I think I can find one? If it can be gotten to where it is needed it could be used to penetrate the walls of the Emerald City.

Hell, why not use the WWII-era German Schwerer Gustav and Schwerer Dora railway guns? 80cm bore, they might do a number on the walls.

The logistics required for those are exorbitant, even today.
It's cheaper to just pump the wall full of APFSDS.

impatrick4life wrote:

JN1 wrote:Stu, would 1 CW Army have a use for an 18inch howitzer firing concrete penetrating shells, because I think I can find one? If it can be gotten to where it is needed it could be used to penetrate the walls of the Emerald City.

Hell, why not use the WWII-era German Schwerer Gustav and Schwerer Dora railway guns? 80cm bore, they might do a number on the walls.

It would help if those still existed, given that they were both destroyed before the war ended.

impatrick4life wrote:

JN1 wrote:Stu, would 1 CW Army have a use for an 18inch howitzer firing concrete penetrating shells, because I think I can find one? If it can be gotten to where it is needed it could be used to penetrate the walls of the Emerald City.

Hell, why not use the WWII-era German Schwerer Gustav and Schwerer Dora railway guns? 80cm bore, they might do a number on the walls.

Because bombers trump shells. The Schwerer Gustav fired 5-ton shells filled with 700 kg of high explosives. Compare this to World War II's B29, which could carry a 9-ton payload. Bombs dropped from airplanes could carry considerably more explosives than artillery shells of comparable weight, because they have thinner casings.

Chamale wrote:

impatrick4life wrote:

JN1 wrote:Stu, would 1 CW Army have a use for an 18inch howitzer firing concrete penetrating shells, because I think I can find one? If it can be gotten to where it is needed it could be used to penetrate the walls of the Emerald City.

Hell, why not use the WWII-era German Schwerer Gustav and Schwerer Dora railway guns? 80cm bore, they might do a number on the walls.

Because bombers trump shells. The Schwerer Gustav fired 5-ton shells filled with 700 kg of high explosives. Compare this to World War II's B29, which could carry a 9-ton payload. Bombs dropped from airplanes could carry considerably more explosives than artillery shells of comparable weight, because they have thinner casings.

Explosives don't do you any good if they just blow up on the surface compared to a smaller amount of explosives traveling much faster and it's casing is much heavier.

Scottish Ninja wrote:

impatrick4life wrote:

JN1 wrote:Stu, would 1 CW Army have a use for an 18inch howitzer firing concrete penetrating shells, because I think I can find one? If it can be gotten to where it is needed it could be used to penetrate the walls of the Emerald City.

Hell, why not use the WWII-era German Schwerer Gustav and Schwerer Dora railway guns? 80cm bore, they might do a number on the walls.

It would help if those still existed, given that they were both destroyed before the war ended.

I know, I know... which sucks, they would have come in handy.

SilverHawk wrote:

Chamale wrote:

impatrick4life wrote:
Hell, why not use the WWII-era German Schwerer Gustav and Schwerer Dora railway guns? 80cm bore, they might do a number on the walls.

Because bombers trump shells. The Schwerer Gustav fired 5-ton shells filled with 700 kg of high explosives. Compare this to World War II's B29, which could carry a 9-ton payload. Bombs dropped from airplanes could carry considerably more explosives than artillery shells of comparable weight, because they have thinner casings.

Explosives don't do you any good if they just blow up on the surface compared to a smaller amount of explosives traveling much faster and it's casing is much heavier.

Yeah, about that... Grand Slam Bomb.

All of that stuff has been thought off, LONG ago. Bombers still trump artillery for that kind of stuff...

Atlan wrote:

SilverHawk wrote:
Explosives don't do you any good if they just blow up on the surface compared to a smaller amount of explosives traveling much faster and it's casing is much heavier.

Yeah, about that... Grand Slam Bomb.

All of that stuff has been thought off, LONG ago. Bombers still trump artillery for that kind of stuff...

Attach a little wiring and a computer, mess with the fins a bit, attach a few servo motors, and add Paveway-series laser guidance heads, and you've got the perfect weapon then.

SilverHawk wrote:Explosives don't do you any good if they just blow up on the surface compared to a smaller amount of explosives traveling much faster and it's casing is much heavier.

Good point. My B29 point was just meant to illustrate the practicality of dropping bombs as opposed to firing shells. As others have pointed out, the logistics of sending out an airplane are much more manageable than dragging around a 1,000-ton cannon. Bombers deliver more explosives, but non-specialized bombs can't penetrate through as much material as artillery shells.

To bomb the walls from afar, I think a bunker buster or Grand Slam would be the best solution, but I'm no military expert. Are there specific weapons designed to break down extremely thick walls from a distance?

Chamale wrote:

SilverHawk wrote:Explosives don't do you any good if they just blow up on the surface compared to a smaller amount of explosives traveling much faster and it's casing is much heavier.

Good point. My B29 point was just meant to illustrate the practicality of dropping bombs as opposed to firing shells. As others have pointed out, the logistics of sending out an airplane are much more manageable than dragging around a 1,000-ton cannon. Bombers deliver more explosives, but non-specialized bombs can't penetrate through as much material as artillery shells.

To bomb the walls from afar, I think a bunker buster or Grand Slam would be the best solution, but I'm no military expert. Are there specific weapons designed to break down extremely thick walls from a distance?

Currently? No. But you might be able to jury-rig a Tomahawk with a penetrator warhead.

The ATACMS, Tochka or Chinese P611 very short range ballistic missiles should be pretty good for knocking down walls. Probably cheaper and faster than a Tomahawk too.

Nematocyst wrote:The logistics required for those are exorbitant, even today.
It's cheaper to just pump the wall full of APFSDS.

AFAIK fin rounds will just bore nice neat little holes in the wall and might not even penetrate all the way through. Penetrating weapons containing high explosive, like the Storm Shadow with its BROACH warhead, might be better.

The British Army does still have one 18inch howitzer on a proof mounting at Larkhill. During WW2 there were plans to move 13.5inch guns and the two 18inch guns to France and Italy to deal with German fortifications and concrete penetrating shells were designed, though logistics issues meant that the deployment never took place.
A recent article on the last surviving 18inch howitzer, which is the largest surviving railway gun, gave me the idea. However bomber delivered weapons and tac nukes do trump it.

Thinking about the Grand Slam I'm not sure what bombers could potentially deliver it. The BUFF and BONE might be able to, depends on the configuration of their bomb bays. The Victor can carry one, or two of the smaller Tallboys, though no Victors are in service as bombers, and the Vulcan can't carry either the Grand Slam, or Tallboy.
If there are still any B-36s being used they can certainly carry the Grand Slam or the T-12 Cloudmaker. Alternatively there is always the Massive Ordnance Penetrator.