Cutlass for the Marines
- Thread starter Leitz
- Start date
Mono edge would work for woven armours, but not for a Carapace, for that you would need a Resonance field on the weapon to disrupt the shell of the carapace to get at the under layers.
Mono-edge good for Weaves like Combat Envroment Suits and soft space suits Resonance Fields for Combat Armour, Battledress and Hard Space Suits. Woven Armors are less vulnerable to Resonance fields (but still a little better than a normal blade).
Mono-edge good for Weaves like Combat Envroment Suits and soft space suits Resonance Fields for Combat Armour, Battledress and Hard Space Suits. Woven Armors are less vulnerable to Resonance fields (but still a little better than a normal blade).
Why?
Monomolecular edges, when they can be attained, are the most effective way of breaking the intermolecular bonds of solids.
At present, they're done only with fairly fragile materials, but nothing cuts like them. Obsidian, which naturally flakes to a single molecule edge, makes the VERY best scalpels... and while the cut bone, they're too fragile to not be broken by the sides of the cut fracturing behind the edge due to thickness.
So you're saying, even if made in something like superdense or reinforced like bonded superdense, they'd lose the edge when they struck a hard surface.
I hadn't realized obsidian made a monomolecular edge.
Only when fractured along the grain. And that doesn't last long.
Superdense should be better at not flaking.
BlackBat242
SOC-14 1K
It's not just that. Unless your entire blade in one molecule wide, then you have to push the material you just cut into to the side to allow your blade to go deeper in. For hard metals (or any other dense material) this is very difficult.
That is where "vibro-blades" come into play - they are supposed to vibrate fast enough to either heat the material being cut into enough to soften the material so the blade can push deeper - or to actually break the material's molecular bonds where it comes into contact with the blade, basically powdering the material on its way in.
That is where "vibro-blades" come into play - they are supposed to vibrate fast enough to either heat the material being cut into enough to soften the material so the blade can push deeper - or to actually break the material's molecular bonds where it comes into contact with the blade, basically powdering the material on its way in.
Travellerspud
SOC-12
Niven's "Variable Sword" comes to mind (just need the Ancients for the Stasis Field technology)
That was the first one that came to mind when I wrote the original question.
But if a level of technology could build an effective edge for a monomolec sword, the likelihood that materials and field science could build this effectively may only be limited by your vision of YTU. What TL do you see this sort of option being available at?
Regarding a Monofilament edge:
According to MgT: Supplement 4 - Central Supply Catalogue, p.37:
Regarding a monofilament blade (which would need a Stasis Field - i.e. a Niven-style "Variable Sword/Knife":
According to the T5 Tech Chart on p.508 of the Core Book, Stasis is TL-21.
martletsquire
SOC-12
Force has a lot to do with penetration. A duller anti-armor sword will penetrate armor better than a finer edged slashing style sword. It is the Chisel effect. Good demo is drop a sheet of plywood edgewise on your foot. Or, maybe, don't, as it hurts real bad and you can pop a toe or two off doing that. Blech.
But, if the edge is strong enough, force combined with a mono edge will make the best chisel ever. Kind of like the palmate Boma blades of the Posleen in the Aldenata series. Mono starts the separation, rest of blade continues the split and voila, loss of body parts occurs. Naturally, the harder the target, such as battledress, the harder the swing will have to be.
And there will be a chance of breaking the edge. That is the breaks with edged weapons. Reason why lots of medieval weapons were sharpened, but not really sharp, so to speak.
So yeah, mono edges made from bonded superdense would be the snizzle. And definitely the way to go for cutting.
And a good reason to carry a mace with you. Now, if you could figure out a way to have a weapon materialize from a spray, then you could carry a can... of Mace. :rofl:
But, if the edge is strong enough, force combined with a mono edge will make the best chisel ever. Kind of like the palmate Boma blades of the Posleen in the Aldenata series. Mono starts the separation, rest of blade continues the split and voila, loss of body parts occurs. Naturally, the harder the target, such as battledress, the harder the swing will have to be.
And there will be a chance of breaking the edge. That is the breaks with edged weapons. Reason why lots of medieval weapons were sharpened, but not really sharp, so to speak.
So yeah, mono edges made from bonded superdense would be the snizzle. And definitely the way to go for cutting.
And a good reason to carry a mace with you. Now, if you could figure out a way to have a weapon materialize from a spray, then you could carry a can... of Mace. :rofl:
Yup...and if whatever you're shoving the blade through torques in any way it could very easily trap or break the blade.
LOL_ I was wondering how long it would be before someone pointed out this solution. It has a long pedigree in science fiction, too.
IMTU I have vibroblades and "sonic-sabres". The sabres are more like a 1904 Pattern Austrian sabre that has only a slight curve that is more towards the tip than the dramatic curves found in some. I admit, I have some bias towards the design from having used it (and the "Patton" saber, which is pretty much a heavier sport fencing sabre) and found it was one of the few of the type that was comfortable to use on foot rather than horseback. Not that I ever tried it from horseback, but at my salle we did set up a Prussian-style sabre piste with two circles and full-size sabres for simulating the experience of fighting form horse - just no cut-outs for sexy cheek scars. I wasn't the greatest at it since I kept "falling off my horse".
Pretty much I treat the vibroblade like a cutlass for armor DM's, and a Blade for range and damage. The sonic sabre is treated like a broadsword for armor DM's and like a cutlass for range. It does 3D6 damage, though, which puts it between a Sword and Broadsword for wounding.
Patron Zero
SOC-13
Even a blade with a keen mono-molecular edge could benefit from the ability to deliver a paralyzing electrical charge to targets not so insulated against such.
My own rationale for cutlass use by Marines was always that they're intended as ship's troops, and ships (or habitats) are fragile, rather like aircraft today - the hull may not be so thin, but it's packed with sensitive electronics and other essential life support systems. Discharging high-penetration firearms not wise in that environment, especially if you want to capture the ship/habitat rather than just mission-kill it (which presumably you do if you've gone to the bother of boarding in the first place). Blades and shotguns therefore preferred.
We discussed earlier that bayonet weapons are preferable in that role, given the corridors, the need to fight in tight quarters with teammates at your side, and the need to be able to switch quickly from ranged fire to melee. And, a mission-kill is only a concern in spaces like the engine room and bridge, where damage might affect the ability to immediately commandeer and move the ship. Elsewhere, damage to life support or gravitics is a problem for the repair crews, not the boarding team.
There a lot of other systems on a ship as complicated as a starship that may not react well to firearms and energy weapons. AHL makes note of that with the different color codes for shpboard machinery. Some of it may go boom if you shoot it too much and cause a lot of collateral damage among whomever is close to it - and that isn't always the bad guys.
In a gunfight you have to pay attention to what is behind you as well as in front and beyond who you are shooting at.
So as well as, or an alternative to, a cutlass with a mono/vibro edge could be a similarly enhanced bayonet. That could eliminate some of the problems of damage to the edge, increased penetration, plus the ability to keep firing when necessary.
I disagree ranged fire would typically be a sensible option, because:
I'm not sure the remaining reasons are enough to break my SOD. Those who know more about what these weapons are actually like to use may well disagree.
1) Per canon, a ship's bulkheads and decks are strong enough to withstand fire from bullet-firing weapons (Supplement 7). Energy weapons, including the laser carbine, are a problem; they can be used to cut through a bulkhead, albeit with considerable effort. That puts the bulkhead armor rating somewhere above a Striker rating of 3 and below a 7. Weapons in the LAG and gauss rifle class might be a problem, but weapons up to the automatic rifle and accel rifle are not. The bulkheads are described as having maintenance hatches, implying any vulnerable equipment is within or behind the bulkhead.
2) Most combat is in the horizontal plane. Fire impacting the deck or ceiling is therefore likely to impact at a sharp angle, substantially reducing the odds of penetration.
3) Non-bulkhead partitions are described as "non-load-bearing panels firmly fixed in place. They are not pressure-tight, and cannot withstand
a concerted assault." The only vulnerable equipment I expect to find in a partition would be electrical wiring leading to a light switch or outlet, maybe a thermostat or similar control, possibly a pipe delivering water to a sink, that kind of thing. None of it is mission-critical, and all of it can be repaired quickly if damaged.
4) The accel rifle is specifically designed for zero-G work. Zero-g combat is very likely to involve opponents wearing at least vacc suits, which are pretty tough in Traveller - armor rating 5. With a maximum Striker penetration of 3 - same as a rifle - it is therefore underpowered for its job. However, if the weapon is intended to provide an offensive capability without penetrating bulkheads, then its design makes more sense.
5) While the vacc suit does provide a strong defense, it is not invulnerable to rifle or accel rifle fire. In the Book-1 combat setting, it's a -2 to the to-hit roll, meaning you need at least a 10, not considering other modifiers. In the Striker setting, a defense of 5 versus a penetration of 3 results in a severe wound 6 in 36 shots and a light wound in 20 of 36 shots; the vacc suit withstands the shot in only 10 of 36 cases.
I suggest to you therefore that a rifle, automatic rifle, accel rifle or weapons with equivalent or less power, are acceptable in a shipboard combat situation on a civilian ship. Snub pistols, with their HEAP round, have some risk of penetrating bulkheads, but the HEAP round will trigger on impacting a partition, so they are probably safe so long as the user is careful about bulkheads in his immediate vicinity. Yes, persons behind partitions are vulnerable to crossfire, but I doubt the attacker cares, and the defender is faced with meeting fire with fire or giving up.
Those weapons are of course no help in a military boarding involving high quality combat armor or battledress, but my suspicion is that naval designers aware of the potential for a boarding would design their ships with critical components protected against the potential for stray fire during boarding combat, most likely by keeping key conduits in the decks so that stray fire impacts at an angle and is less likely to penetrate to damage components, or armoring components that absolutely must travel vertically, and by including sufficient redundancy that damage from stray hits does not prevent operation of the ship.
AHL, which was cited, contains rules for weapons damage to machinery, not bulkheads: "Whenever the line of sight of a fire terminates against either a red- or green-coded equipment square, there is a possibility of an equipment explosion in that square. A hit is assumed in this case and damage is determined on the damage table. Green-coded equipment has an assumed armor rating equivalent to cloth (-6) while red-coded equipment has an assumed armor rating equivalent to battle dress (-10). If the damage rolled is a serious wound or death result, the equipment explodes. The explosion of green-coded equipment is equivalent to a grenade. The explosion of red-coded equipment is equivalent to the strike of a fusion gun." The green equipment appears to be consoles and controls, while the red equipment appears to be heavy machinery of various sorts.
Note that the controls are armored equivalent to cloth, and the heavy machinery equivalent to battle dress. Note also that the sole consequence of a machinery hit is an explosion and potential injury to persons in the vicinity of the explosion. In the Bard Endeavour scenarios, there is no impact on the players' ability to satisfy the scenario requirements (including seizing the bridge to take control of the ship and repairing and starting the jump drives) despite the Solomani player operating under a tight deadline to seize the ship before it falls into a gas giant. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that while specific machinery may be vulnerable, the ship itself contains enough redundancy to continue operation despite loss of specific bits of equipment to stray fire in a firefight.
It would appear then that damage to bulkheads is not an issue and that damage to controls and machinery in the course of a firefight, while dangerous to those nearby, will not affect the ship's ability to maneuver or jump, or at least not an affect that can't be quickly repaired or routed around.
Similar threads
