Post by scottwashburn on Jun 25, 2018 14:03:16 GMT
And having them could well improve the morale of the human infantry. Knowing that they had something which could harm a tripod WITHOUT them having to leave their trench and charge would be a big confidence-builder
But that's not the way a shaped-charge explosive works It doesn't need to stick. In fact it's designed to explode a short distance from the target (the nose of the projectile is empty and just serves as a trigger). The shape of the charge directs the blast into a narrow area which burns its way through the armor. The phenomenon was first experimented with by American chemist Charles E. Munroe in 1884. Munroe appears briefly in my second Great Martian War book
Correct, Mr Washburn. The shaped charge needs just a bit of standoff to let the jet blast form and that is provided by the hollow nose cone. After impact, the detonation and jet formation happen too fast for ricochet to be an issue. Poor shot placement (or bad luck) can cause the jet to strike too far off vertical to penetrate.
That is why the combination of Munroe and Goddard (father of US rocketry) was early warning of what was coming later.
There was no backdoor at the Alamo. Planet Earth doesn't have one either. Fight and win or DIE!
Post by scottwashburn on Jun 27, 2018 16:49:53 GMT
Glad you picked up on that. Goddard in real history started work on his rocket launcher near the end of World War I. The war ended before he could complete it and it lay fallow until World War II. I reasoned that with the Martian invasion, I could move up the time-table a few years. Goddard would be very young, but still an adult and Munroe's work was already known at that time and it seems natural that Goddard would seek him out to supply the warhead for his rocket.
Okay thanks for all the info. In my Infantry Weapons thread, I explained the above facts about the bazooka as well as the submachine gun, both developed for WW1, but not issued due to the ending of the war. The Thompson was developed as a 'trench clearer' and the bazooka for taking out blockhouses and strong positions. As for the reactors, I'm sure no major city would be used at an attempt to work with the technology after the Liverpool disaster. Not sure where they would work on such a thing - maybe some where in the Egyptian/Libya deserts or under the mountains in WV?
True, some things do just take time. But major warfare can compress the timelines dramatically. The Manhattan Program went from chalkboard theory and empty green fields to nuclear weapons on target in only about 6 years. Rocketry went from a bunch of German hobbyists to V-2s dropping on London and Amsterdam in only about 8 years. A more leisurely timeline certainly gives more time for the development of plot that might be short-circuited (please pardon pun) by a jump to nuclear warfare.
An interplanetary war for species survival might be considered at least equally stressful. My $0.02
madmorgan: your comment highlights a disconnect between the AQMF fiction line and Mr Washburn's books. LIverpool was destroyed by an experiment gone wrong with a "radium engine" used by the Martians to power the tripods. Mr Washburn's Martians evidently use some sort of superconductive energy storage coils. Certainly yielding a big bang when disrupted (sometimes), but not the city-killing event that is in the AQMF fiction line.
However, the delicious concept of rocketing a few kilotons to Mars might indicate that we are significantly peturbed by their actions.
My apologies for taking this line from WW-1 to nuclear warfare. I will stop now.
Nah, its all good man. I do wonder why Scott did that disconnect? I suppose the impact of a tripod going 'nuke' on a good roll was a little too much book wise - I mean our favorite characters from the books would probably be quite dead from their first success against a tripod - not to mention all those troops that succeeded in blowing up such a beast.
Post by scottwashburn on Jun 29, 2018 11:33:41 GMT
Why do you have to wonder when I'm right here and you can just ask me?
I actually discussed that with Ernie Baker before he disappeared. I had several issues with the 'Liverpool Incident". First, as a long-time advocate of nuclear power, it always really annoyed me when a nuclear power plant blows up or threatens to blow up in a TV show or movie. That simply cannot happen. It's not physically possible for it to happen and I hate the fear-mongering that surrounds the issue of nuclear power. The other, more practical, issue was that if humans could accidentally make a Martian power plant explode like a nuke, it wouldn't be long before they figured out how to do it on purpose. Did Ernie really want the humans armed with nukes? He sort of conceded my point, but it was too late to change the fluff in the rule book.
But I WAS able to change things in MY book So I took the reactors out of the tripods and replaced them with the super-conductor energy cells. Such a thing COULD explode rather spectacularly under the wrong circumstances (the US military did a rather amazing test of this years ago), so the results in the game could still occur, but no actual nukes.
As for what will come in future books now that the Americans have captured a working Martian reactor in the holdfast? Well, those prey-creatures are turning out to be darn clever! So we shall see.
I concur with your logic and artistic appeal. As it stands, I've developed some interesting troop types from the Liverpool explosion in the rule book, so I'll stick to that (inaccurate) situation. See my various Liverpool survivor units (from Black Hats line) for my work on these. I agree with you on the points. My artistic license goes to the various figures I manage to work into the game (sorta - not everyone really cares about such things). You should see my next tread as it features one of your Paper Terrain products
I used to work at a nuclear reactor. I was a guard. I spent a week at the gate to Reactor 1, the first commercial reactor in the US. The next day I worked, my sergent put me on parking lot patrol. When I came in the next day, Radiation Safety was waiting for me. There was a huge spike in my radiation dose. It seems being outside in the sunshine exposed me to more radiation than being a few meters from an actual reactor vessel. Hmmmmm. Yes, Scott, it is impossible to detonate a reactor. Get killed by radiation, yes. I was more at risk driving on the interstate than at Work.
Stovepipes need standoff distance for the monroe-effect shaped charge to work. Very True. My limited exposure to Hellfire and Stinger missiles taught me this. The cone-shaped tip of the bazooka round is designed to provide standoff for the charge that is several inches behind the tip.
ON THE OTHER HAND
Artillery rockets would probably benefit from wicket glue to help a regular charge adhere. The plain ole doughboy flinging a satchel charge would also benefit from the charge adhering to the target tripod. Both have advantages in certain applications.
Interesting! I helped build the Limerick Nuclear Power Plant here in Pennsylvania. I was only on-site before the fuel was loaded, so I didn't have to worry about radiation exposure. Of course the poor humans checking out the Martian reactor at the Little Rock holdfast are probably going to be in an extremely haradous situation until they figure out what they are dealing with.
Early in WW-2, the British fielded "sticky bombs" for anti-tank work. The were a large grenade inside a cloth bag that had glue on the outside. The whole thing was encased in a thin metal shell composed of two halves. When ready, the intrepid user (1) unlatched the shell, (2) let the halves spring open (3) pull the pin on grenade and (4) finally toss it. The many places that the thing could adhere, besides the target are obvious. The crew inside the tank could be expected to take a very dim view of this whole proceeding and try to put a stop it.
Weird, but true. It was called Anti-tank Grenade No.74