Hydrogen ice bombs

[Uncle Bob]

You are postulating a weapon that is very powerful, has unique capabilities and must be commonly available. Yet it is no-where in any Traveller book.

This is supporting canon?

I prefer to believe that anti-ship weapons and SDBs (which we have ample support for in canon) were considered the preferred defence as no point defence was very effective. Especially against a Big Rock.

As to why we don't see more kinetic bombardment weapons, you aren't allways supporting attacks on a 1 G planet. A gravity powered weapon is little good against a low G world, a moon or a planatoid. We don't see much equivalent to Naval Gunfire Support with any weapon, so low orbit must be a dangerous place. Dumb rocks are not very accurate and need to be dropped from a even more vulnerable very low orbit. A "smart rock" is a missile and follows missile rules (with a bigger bang, maybe).

 

[Liam Devlin]

UNcle Bob's physics are on the money guys. David Niven's "Thor's Hammer" (ie the crowbars from space) was recent topic on Tne-list. at best its used on moderate to 1+G worlds. versus open ground targets (or as my friends in the Tank/ Armored cavalry call us GROPOS, "crunchies) where volume of fire is needed over accuracy.

Best used against TL-6 hosty worlds with little or no AAA or SAD capability, for you warmongering types (Me included-Solee uses this in my campaign as cheap way to knock out TEDs who resist their regime changes/ "prep" the invasion zones. Beats the heck out of Multi MCR missiles.)

Gives new meaning to the phrase "Carpet bombing".

 

[themink]

But dropping rocks isn't canon.

There must be a good reason for this (other than Marc didn;t think of it) and the best reason that we came up with was that there was a simple tech defense - what the defence was is irrelevant (I proposed either a gauss or counter missile) however it must have been ubiquitous at some stage so that nobody bothers dropping rocks any more.

In the same way from WWI onwards, armour became irrelevant because people stopped using it. Later the reasons for it's ceasing no longer applied however it was still unused. (Read up on Ned Kelly - Aussie Hero). Later this has been reassessed and police in lawless areas how have been known to wear ballistic jackets. Soldiers are still virtually unarmoured.

The ubiquitous anti-rock defense no longer needs to be arround - as long as nobody bothers testing the boundaries, nobody bothers to look it up.

There are lots of these "But what about technology X" questions that CT doesn;t answer and they can all be answered by "It turned out to have an obvious flaw once it became a developed technology"

These techs include such obvious things as perpetual motion machines, biotechnology, nanotechnology, etc etc

 

[Liam Devlin]

Originally posted by The Mink:
But dropping rocks isn't canon.

______________________________________________
This is a heretic you're talking to, lad! If you have repulsors (TL-14+) to shunt away missiles, even bay mounted ones, imagine the expense to do so say if even a modified Fat Trader (belly doors like a bomber) does a flyby and lets em rip. Rocks don't have much heat signature in space-til they're burnin into atmosphere.

Thats why I have the caveat included what TL is best suitable for use against (Though anything without TL-7 is pretty defenseless). There are also the "canon" IMperial WMD laws...

 

[vegascat]

Dropping rocks or crowbars is great if you have a ship cappable of doing it, but what about the poor little merc groups who are operating on a tight budget with no orbital access. Using kinetic kill rocks is not always an option. This may be why so many merc units still get by as artillary units.

Missle warheads not needed? Of course if the missile is on an opposite trajectory and scores a direct hit, a warhead is excess. In a stern chase where closing velocities are not extreme, or when a direct hit is not made, then a warhead is needed for a kill. Modern missiles are designed to kill on a near miss, not a direct hit. Side mounted target detectors cause detonation when a target is beside the missle. The warheads, expanding rod bundle or annular blast, are designed to throw frag in a plane perpindicular to the missle, slicing up whatever is close by. ECM is expected to cause a missile to miss, so the missles are intended to kill anyways.

 

[Liam Devlin]

Vegas cat: Thanks fer the post!

As fer missiles not being needed..nope, missiles will always be needed. IMTU, it was cheaper fer the SOllies to utilize rocks, and keep the missiles fer precise location targets, and anti-RC ship to ship engagements.

Rock orbital "bombing" is risky to the ship, fer those not familiar-yer close to the planet and any defenses they might have. Yer in its gravity well. Now with practice...one might release the "payload" earlier, and let it travel towards the target world (with no guarantees of precision-just a surface hit).
This would be "terror bombing" by any definition, random mass destruction.

 

[gardclan]

"Sir, the orbital kinetic strike has deviated from the planned firing sheaf... the meteors are all hitting a full 5km to the east of the intended target."

"What do you want, Lieutennant? They're dumb as rocks!"

 

[Liam Devlin]

"Darn ! Missed their Naval Port-Hit the ocean instead!"

"The tidal wave will fix that error..."
--selected Soleean transmissions on subduing Marcena/Shenk/OE circa 1202.

 

[chaos mike]

Whatever happened to good old fashioned wet-work. Waxing your enemies from orbit is just no fun at all. Additionally, you can use pict recorders on your armor for entries for The Empire's Funniest Combat Videos.

Chaos

 

[tjoneslo]

Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
You are postulating a weapon that is very powerful, has unique capabilities and must be commonly available. Yet it is no-where in any Traveller book.

This is supporting canon?

Gee. You seem to have re-discovered TML Flame War topic #1. This "problem" has been around for almost as long as Traveller has.

The usual handwave (other than the technological fixes provided) is the Mutually Assured Destruction defense. Once you start using such black war tactics, your enemy would have no compunction about returing the favor. And during the later half of the Rebellion, some of these tactics were tried. Which contrbuted to the dark times that fell afterward.
Besides, dropping a near-c rock on a planet destroys it. You can't colonize it, you can exploit the native population, you can put the industrial capacity to work for you. Its generally a waste.

 

[GBoyett]

Originally posted by Liam Devlin:

Rock orbital "bombing" is risky to the ship, fer those not familiar-yer close to the planet and any defenses they might have. Yer in its gravity well. Now with practice...one might release the "payload" earlier, and let it travel towards the target world (with no guarantees of precision-just a surface hit).
This would be "terror bombing" by any definition, random mass destruction.

Quite true in both scenarios (close orbit and high orbit release) if you're using unmodified rocks. Another tactic is to place rockets or thrusters and a guidance systems on the rock. That way you can have more control if you use a high orbit release.

Your right Liam about rock dropping as a terror bombing. The only reason to use them is to deny strategic resourse (including cities) and to send a message to the population that fighting will be costly.

 

[gardclan]

The other possibility is to magnetically accelerate semi-massive chunks of iron from specially designed bombardment bays aboard ship. A fifty kilo chunk of iron launched into a gravity well at 5-10kps is nothing to sneeze at. Outfit an ortillery platform with ten or so tubes and you have a rather nifty toy.

As Uncle Bob has already pointed out, you can effectively carpet bomb with these things. Go rapid fire on all tubes (say, one cannonball every ten seconds or so from each tube) and you can pretty much level anything on the surface. Just sit the platform in high orbit, or aboard strike ships for better mobility.

Orbital rock dropping doesn't have to be in the multi-megaton range to be effective. If the bowling balls are cheaper than missiles, and the launcher plus a respectable ammo hopper is cheaper than a meson gun, then the system is useful.

 

[themink]

So It's a Gauss gun. Used in orbital bombardment mode.

The bullet hit at terminal velocity unless you accelerate them a huge amount (ie your gun fires strongly enough that the lump no longer has orbital velocity). So they get the bulk of their impact from mass and streamlining - still sounds like a crowbar)

It means that you can only fire at targets from particular locations in your orbit (ie set up your bombing run then blast as you go past). Adjusted very slightly by the power of your gun.

Missiles are probably much more effective as they can "home" onto targets and can provide much greater Delta V so they have a wider "fire arc" from a particular orbit. So you get the impetus from the Missile Launcher and then can adjust with engines.

 

[GBoyett]

Originally posted by Darth Sillyus:
The other possibility is to magnetically accelerate semi-massive chunks of iron from specially designed bombardment bays aboard ship. A fifty kilo chunk of iron launched into a gravity well at 5-10kps is nothing to sneeze at. Outfit an ortillery platform with ten or so tubes and you have a rather nifty toy.

As Uncle Bob has already pointed out, you can effectively carpet bomb with these things. Go rapid fire on all tubes (say, one cannonball every ten seconds or so from each tube) and you can pretty much level anything on the surface. Just sit the platform in high orbit, or aboard strike ships for better mobility.

Orbital rock dropping doesn't have to be in the multi-megaton range to be effective. If the bowling balls are cheaper than missiles, and the launcher plus a respectable ammo hopper is cheaper than a meson gun, then the system is useful.

Ah Mass Drivers! My favorite!

I usually go for the 500 lbs rocks for bigger effects. VW size rocks are perfect for the truly strategic hits.

Then you have a choice on the blast effect. Base on the velocity and rock material you can either get a ground hit or air blast. From several scientific articles the overpressure of the atmosphere can cause a fragile meteor to explode in mid air at the optimum height of an airburst, as determined from nuclear weapon research. The 1906 Siberia explosion indicated such an event took place.

 

[Liam Devlin]

As I recall, early Mass drivers come into being around TL-8, according to FF&S. Hmmmm.

 

[trader jim]

hhhmmmmnnnn....how about frozen hydrogen Vorpal Bunnies.....

 

[GBoyett]

Originally posted by trader jim:
hhhmmmmnnnn....how about frozen hydrogen Vorpal Bunnies.....

Nah. Some of the toxins don't really solidify when frozen.

 

[gardclan]

Originally posted by The Mink:
So It's a Gauss gun. Used in orbital bombardment mode.

The bullet hit at terminal velocity unless you accelerate them a huge amount (ie your gun fires strongly enough that the lump no longer has orbital velocity). So they get the bulk of their impact from mass and streamlining - still sounds like a crowbar)

Yep... big gauss gun. However, since the slabs/cannonballs/crowbars/iron laced chocolate rabbits will impact at whatever speed they left the launcher, minus any drag effects, plus gravity acceleration. Terminal velocity only applies to objects acclerated by gravity alone.

In other words the projectile will hit at much HIGHER than terminal velocity. Objects entering the atmosphere at higher velocities do tend to slow down... but proper streamlining can mitigate much of the effect.

And, yes, a crowbar would have a lower drag coefficient... therefore it would probably be more effective than your average lump of iron.

Missiles are probably much more effective as they can "home" onto targets and can provide much greater Delta V so they have a wider "fire arc" from a particular orbit. So you get the impetus from the Missile Launcher and then can adjust with engines.

Delta V is only a benefit if you are far enough out to take advantage of it. Assuming that a missile and a crowbar were both launched simultaneously from the same ship... the crowbar leaves at 10kps... the missile leaves with a nudge and then requires 166 seconds to match speed with the crowbar... which is now 1660km down range. The missile, by this point will be 826km down range, but beginning to gain on the crowbar. Depending on the altitude of your orbit, the velocity point is probably moot.

Now, if you can use a mass driver to launch the missile... my whole velocity argument pretty much goes away. I'd doubt that most turrets have enough room however. Maybe missile bays?

True, missiles can be fired from much further out and can home in on the target... but they are also MUCH more expensive than a crowbar. From a purely economic standpoint, mass driver bombardment using solid projectiles yields a very cheap way to do ortillary. If your platform is mobile, then a geosynchronous orbit over the target allows for saturation of fire. Firing sheaf deviation shouldn't be too much worse (if at all) than for conventional ground based artillary.

Crowbars can't be jammed, aren't any easier for point defense to shoot down than missiles are, don't require warheads, are cheap as hell to make, and can be launched in droves. Want or need nukes? No problem... just damper the whole launch bay and tip your crowbars with tamped californium a la Book 4.

Propaganda bombs? Well... let me think on that one...

A very versatile system. IMHO.

I'm not saying that gauss crowbars are *better* than missiles... just that they are cheaper and can be almost as effective. If you're waging a war, cost savings can add up quickly when it comes time to replace lost units.

 

[Liam Devlin]

Originally posted by Darth Sillyus:
Now, if you can use a mass driver to launch the missile... my whole velocity argument pretty much goes away. I'd doubt that most turrets have enough room however. Maybe missile bays?

True, missiles can be fired from much further out and can home in on the target... but they are also MUCH more expensive than a crowbar. From a purely economic standpoint, mass driver bombardment using solid projectiles yields a very cheap way to do ortillary. If your platform is mobile, then a geosynchronous orbit over the target allows for saturation of fire. Firing sheaf deviation shouldn't be too much worse (if at all) than for conventional ground based artillary.

Crowbars can't be jammed, aren't any easier for point defense to shoot down than missiles are, don't require warheads, are cheap as hell to make, and can be launched in droves. Want or need nukes? No problem... just damper the whole launch bay and tip your crowbars with tamped californium a la Book 4.

A very versatile system. IMHO.

I'm not saying that gauss crowbars are *better* than missiles... just that they are cheaper and can be almost as effective. If you're waging a war, cost savings can add up quickly when it comes time to replace lost units.

_________________________________________________
Mass driven..yessssssss. Darth, ye just made Admiral's list in the Soleean Navy lad! WhooHoo!
Pax Solee--indeed!

 

[GBoyett]

Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
Mass driven..yessssssss. Darth, ye just made Admiral's list in the Soleean Navy lad! WhooHoo!
Pax Solee--indeed!

I love the Centauri belly slung spinal mounted mass drivers. I'm talking about 100dton+ airburst munitions.