Subj:	TRAVELLER digest 328
Date:	95-06-25 21:58:52 EDT
From:	traveller@mpgn.com
To:	traveller@mpgn.com

From:	traveller@mpgn.com
Sender:	traveller@mpgn.com
Reply-to:	traveller@mpgn.com
To:	traveller@mpgn.com (Multiple recipients of list)
			    TRAVELLER Digest 328

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Fuel Air Explosives
	by pmcnae@ozemail.com.au (Peter McNae)
  2) 
	by "Yehuda D. Yizraeli" <yehuda@lisa.chipx.co.il>
  3) Re: Big Lasers
	by "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@smtpwpo.dayt.tasc.com>
  4) Re: Big Lasers
	by bonnevil@flipper.itlabs.umn.edu (Steven Bonneville)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 16:28:37 +1000
From: pmcnae@ozemail.com.au (Peter McNae)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Fuel Air Explosives
Message-ID: <199506250628.QAA27186@oznet02.ozemail.com.au>

I've been reading the David Drake book "The Sharp End" which is about 
Hammers Slammers. At one point in the story one of the troopers uses what is 
referred to as a Bunker Buster grenade. Basically a fuel-air explosive
grenade.

This got me thinking of how effective such a weapon would be. As well as the 
bigger sized versions that were used during the gulf war.

Anybody done any work on these? Or have any ideas?

==================================================================
Peter McNae, Sydney, Australia
Internet: pmcnae@ozemail.com.au or pmcnae@msn.com
"Now it's green button to send, and red button to destroy the world. Whoops!"


------------------------------

Date: Sun, 25 Jun 95 15:02:58 EET
From: "Yehuda D. Yizraeli" <yehuda@lisa.chipx.co.il>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Message-ID: <199506251201.IAA17012@Mithril.MPGN.COM>

subscribe

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 11:53:57 -0400
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@smtpwpo.dayt.tasc.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Big Lasers
Message-ID: <sfed4e6c.067@smtpwpo.dayt.tasc.com>

George Herbert writes regarding the 50*TL laser limit:

>Without it, and I havent' seen it so I assume it's not mandatory
>(or perhaps nonexistent? 8-), lasers which hit with full effeiency out to
>80 hexes are easy, and gigajoule to tens of gigajoule lasers will punch
>holes in anyones battleship.  Lasers in that class range fit on
> sub-10kton 

   To me, it's a question of whether you want to play a game that
resembles Traveller/MegaTraveller in flavor, or something else.
I support the concept of a power output limit.  It would be illogical
for there to be any development of PA or meson weapons otherwise.

Here's why: Scientist Freddie T. Smith (or whatever) is playing around
with some subatomic particles one day in his lab, and figures out
how to make a weapon that uses mesons.  His collegue, Martha Jones
looks over the figures, "you're right Freddie it's a feasible weapon, but
wouldn't be easier just to design a really big laser?"  Freddie,
undeterred, goes ahead with development.  But Martha was right,
lasers are simply easier to work with, so he drops the project.  The
meson gun is never seriously developed, and becomes a novelty item
until one day several decades later, when Freddie's great grandson
figures out how to make a communicator out of it.

   Spinal mount meson guns are a fact of life on _TNE_ starships.  You
have to come up with a reason why they were developed to the
degree they were, or otherwise you have an unresolvable problem
within the storyline of game system (I won't buy some BS story about
how the Imperial Navy was forced to buy them because the emperor's
megacorporation paid him a kickback for every meson gun sold, sorry).
Saying "lasers can only get so powerful" is much more believable than
"people decided to develop other weapons for variety sake".


Cynthia Higgins writes regarding a limit:

>Actually, it's an unrealistic, completely arbitrary limitation thrown in to
try
>to make TNE look like Classic Trav.

   As I stated, either you try to put in a figleaf to explain why all those
classic/Mega Traveller designs were translated over to TNE as closely
as possible to their original concept, or you just throw away all that
design logic and say, "gee, those silly Imperial types spent tons of money
developing weapons that weren't as good as lasers, no wonder they
blew themselves up."  It is a continuity question, ultimately.

>There seems to be two schools of thought on the TML: one,
>represented by you and others, is that we should maintain consistancy
>with the Classic Imperium at all costs, and bend the rules to fit.   

   I seem to recall a rather large uproar over the relative ineffectiveness
of plasma/fusion weapons in relation to grenade launchers and regular
old CPR guns.  The uproar was so loud, GDW changed the rules to
make plasma/fusion guns more effective.  Why should this issue be
any different? After all, we're talking about inserting a short paragraph
here (one line for new rule, plus a few line of explanation), that's just
not that much for the purpose it would serve.

   You *can* argue, IMHO, over whether the limit should be 50*TL or
75*TL or even 100*TL.  Anyone know why GDW-beta decided on 50?


--Harold


------------------------------

Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 15:11:06 -0500
From: bonnevil@flipper.itlabs.umn.edu (Steven Bonneville)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Big Lasers
Message-ID: <9506252011.AA07930@natasha.itlabs.umn.edu>

The running conversation about the "superiority" of lasers got me
interested in running off two more spinal mount designs to compare
laser and PAWS performance.  Here's two at tech-12, within the
technological reach of the Coalition or Cleon Zhunastu:
		   
TL12 250-GJ PAWS Spinal Mount
-----------------------------
Length:  500 meters
Volume:  500417 kL   Mass: 1000310 metric tons
Power:     6944 MW   Crew:       1
Surface Area:  1.6 sq. meters
Price:   MCr 5041
10:2500  20:625  40:156  80:39
		   
		   
TL12 250-GJ Laser Lance, 3.5 m lens dia.
----------------------------------------
Volume:  627417 kL   Mass: 1127410 metric tons
Power:     6944 MW   Crew:       1
Surface Area:  9.6 sq. meters
Price:   MCr 17741
10:1/400-1250  20:1/100-312  40:1/25-78  80:1/6-19 


These two behemoths are definitely in the battleship class of mount;
the smaller displaces over 35000 tons.  Specifications were a 250
gigajoule discharge energy, and one light-second range to make it
a bit easier on the lower-tech lensing systems.  The figures for
power reflect a normal ROF (not raised to reduce Diff Mods).  It
was assumed that tech-12 computers are available externally, and 
no MFDs were supplied beyond the mandatory beam pointers.

For both weapons, the biggest component is the large HPG bank, which
is 500000 cubic meters in total.  The rest of the volume is for the
workstation, beam pointer, and weapon itself.  The laser lens alone
has a displacement of 9000 tons, while the PAWS tube is only 28 d-tons.  
The PAWS could easily be modified to have superior range performance 
to the laser because of the low impact of its' small size.  As usual, 
ROF increases to the PAWS are also easier than for lasers as well.  
The PAWS also has the advantage of being about a quarter of the 
laser's price; and if the laser were trainable, the laser would be
even worse.  The particle accelerator also has an advantage in the
damage value it delivers against lightly armored ships; if the ship
has an armor factor of roughly half or less of the PAWS's DV, the 
PAWS does more damage than the laser.  With the ease of improving
the PAWS range performance in a more optimal design, this weapon
might be surprisingly formidable at tech-12.

The disadvantages of the PAWS, worse penetration and the length
requirement, still exist, but the possibility of extended range and
high ROF at a substantial cost savings might make the PAWS a bit
more attractive than people think, if you aren't going after heavily
armored targets like deep-site meson guns.  If you want lasers too,
laser bays are quite nice, and make a good replacement for the fusion
bays of yore. 

  Steve Bonneville
  <bonn0015@gold.tc.umn.edu>


------------------------------

End of TRAVELLER Digest 328
***************************


----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
From traveller@mpgn.com Sun Jun 25 21:59:22 1995
Received: from Ambassador.MPGN.COM by emin04.mail.aol.com with ESMTP
	(1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA223081962; Sun, 25 Jun 1995 21:59:22 -0400
Return-Path: <traveller@mpgn.com>
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Ambassador.MPGN.COM (8.6.9/8.6.9)
with SMTP id VAA28772; Sun, 25 Jun 1995 21:40:27 -0400
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 21:40:27 -0400
Message-Id: <199506260140.VAA28772@Ambassador.MPGN.COM>
Errors-To: traveller-request@mpgn.com
Reply-To: traveller@mpgn.com
Originator: traveller@mpgn.com
Sender: traveller@mpgn.com
Precedence: bulk
From: traveller@mpgn.com
To: Multiple recipients of list <traveller@mpgn.com>
Subject: TRAVELLER digest 328
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Traveller Mailing List

