Land Mines

[Dragoner]

...including submunitions.

Here is a Gauss Directional Mine I just added to the gallery, these are common weapons that seem to be missing from the CT at least, repertoire of weapons.

I plan on doing a couple of others that are on my mind, a plasma warhead gravitic-directional anti-tank mine (ala TDX) and a mobile "scurry" mine.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

I'm not sure how a gauss mine would work...

 

[BytePro]

Well, you stand over there... now face the funny plastic looking thing over there... :devil:

Obviously, it expels loads of fine silk-like nano-fibers at a vary rapid rate designed to entangle one's opponent and deal 3d6 of damage in extreme paper-cut like injuries...

Oh. Crap. Gauss not gauze. Got noth'n...

(But it looks and sounds cool!)

 

[Dragoner]

I'm not sure how a gauss mine would work...

Similar to a mortar, except the casing/tube is a gauss cartridge throwing out a gauss round like a piece high velocity shrapnel. Normal shrapnel (splinters) being ineffective vs combat armor/battledress; for every measure a counter-measure.

 

[aramis]

I'm not sure how a gauss mine would work...

A HUGE capacitor
A sacrificial magnetic coil.
A lot of magnetized ferromagnetic darts in tiny tubes
A trigger mechanism

When the trigger acts, it discharges the capacitor into the coil, generating a magnetic field opposite that of the darts. Sufficient energy to damage the coil as it cools. This flings the darts at medium to high velocities.

 

[Enoki]

Similar to a mortar, except the casing/tube is a gauss cartridge throwing out a gauss round like a piece high velocity shrapnel. Normal shrapnel (splinters) being ineffective vs combat armor/battledress; for every measure a counter-measure.

Why would "normal" splinters be ineffective versus battledress? A splinter has mass and velocity the same as a gauss needle. A splinter weighing several ounces going close to 1000 m/s will tear through as much as an inch of steel armor.
In fact, most wargames vastly underestimate the damage larger splinters from high explosive shells will do to armored 'things.' A 150mm or so shell is quite capable of disabling any modern AFV on just a near miss (by up to say 5 to 10 meters) and demolishing most AFV with a direct hit. So, battledress isn't going to save you from large splinters.

That said, of the 2000 to 4000 splinters a larger shell produces less than 5% are 'large' splinters.

 

[Dragoner]

Why would "normal" splinters be ineffective versus battledress? A splinter has mass and velocity the same as a gauss needle. A splinter weighing several ounces going close to 1000 m/s will tear through as much as an inch of steel armor.
In fact, most wargames vastly underestimate the damage larger splinters from high explosive shells will do to armored 'things.' A 150mm or so shell is quite capable of disabling any modern AFV on just a near miss (by up to say 5 to 10 meters) and demolishing most AFV with a direct hit. So, battledress isn't going to save you from large splinters.

That said, of the 2000 to 4000 splinters a larger shell produces less than 5% are 'large' splinters.

Realistically, the large splinters probably would be effective, and as you are stating with the 150mm HE shell, concussion damage can and is effective way to knockout an AFV. However, by the rules, most splinters follow the RAM Flechette rules, which BD/CA are rather immune to.

 

[Enoki]

Realistically, the large splinters probably would be effective, and as you are stating with the 150mm HE shell, concussion damage can and is effective way to knockout an AFV. However, by the rules, most splinters follow the RAM Flechette rules, which BD/CA are rather immune to.

I understand that. But, that is because the rules design follows most other wargames in that respect and holds high explosive rounds largely ineffective against anything armored. I can hold up dozens of other similar examples. It is more a matter of lack of knowledge of the correct effects of explosive rounds than anything.

But, that said, small HE rounds like a 4cm RAM will only produce a few large fragments so they won't have much effect on anything with serious armor.

Blast on the other hand is only useful if it is contained. That is, the round is in an building, lands in a trench, that sort of thing. In the open blast is largely worthless as an explosive effect.

I've actually done quite a bit of research on this on the historical wargaming side of things including basic statistical modelling for it.

 

[McPerth]

A HUGE capacitor
A sacrificial magnetic coil.
A lot of magnetized ferromagnetic darts in tiny tubes
A trigger mechanism

When the trigger acts, it discharges the capacitor into the coil, generating a magnetic field opposite that of the darts. Sufficient energy to damage the coil as it cools. This flings the darts at medium to high velocities.

And the fact that those darts are magneticaly propelled, instead of chemically whould give them much more letality? I'm not an expert on that, but my first guess is that not as much as to make up for the increased cost, and I'm affraid (again not expert on that) that those electic components would be more prone to breakdowns than explosives.

 

[Dragoner]

I understand that. But, that is because the rules design follows most other wargames in that respect and holds high explosive rounds largely ineffective against anything armored. I can hold up dozens of other similar examples. It is more a matter of lack of knowledge of the correct effects of explosive rounds than anything.

I've actually done quite a bit of research on this on the historical wargaming side of things including basic statistical modelling for it.

I agree, I have done statistical modeling on the ww2 level (The Camouflage e-file for panzer general 2 is mine) and you often hear question such as why the 152mm gun on the SU-152 did not have an anti-tank round and the answer is because it didn't need one.

I find that complexity (and realism) is often a trade off with gameplay and RPG's can be a nightmare for arguments with houserules, that is why I just made it a simple graphic that someone could show their players, without adding too much complexity.

 

[BytePro]

I like it - with a buzz and small delay when it arms itself (super-caps) in an atmo

Enjoy Sci-Fi tech that can support RP, sounds cool (pun intended) and has some RW 'rationalization' - regardless of 'economics' or practical implementation.

Thanks!

 

[Dragoner]

I like it - with a buzz and small delay when it arms itself (super-caps) in an atmo

Enjoy Sci-Fi tech that can support RP, sounds cool (pun intended) and has some RW 'rationalization' - regardless of 'economics' or practical implementation.

Thanks!

You are welcome.

It can give the players an ante up on if they are being chased by BD armored troops, set it up in ambush and run in the opposite direction- "you hear the crack of 300 gauss rounds in the distance..."

 

[Enoki]

I could see two other problems with the flechette system:

The flechettes are extremely light. Anything in their path will tumble them making them far less effective. This means that this system is virtually useless in any kind of terrain that has 'stuff' between the mine and targets like high grass, trees, fences, etc. It would probably be surprisingly spectacular to watch it shred the first couple of yards of high grass, trees or bushes but, it wouldn't do anything beyond that.

Second it is complex. That is a bad thing for a cheap mine.

I would rather buy something like a disposable tube launcher that looks say like a 2 foot piece of 2" to 3" PVC pipe that is full of something that look like hockey pucks. You put the end of it on the ground, and fire it in the direction of the bad guys releasing like 20 to 30 anti-personnel mines (the hockey pucks) up to about 50 meters from your position depending on the angle you hold it at. Step on one and "KABOOM!" you now have one less foot even in battledress.
You and your squad simply spray / scatter these right on top of the advancing baddies from cover like mortars and they get to try and not blow themselves up.
You could scale it up to a truck or trailer mounted version that will spray enough to cover a football field sufficently to make the baddies think twice about crossing it.

Being enviromentally friendly you could design the pucks with say a three or four week useful life after being deployed after which in a month or two they turn into fertilizer..... After all, most explosives are based on nitrates.....

 

[Enoki]

I agree, I have done statistical modeling on the ww2 level (The Camouflage e-file for panzer general 2 is mine) and you often hear question such as why the 152mm gun on the SU-152 did not have an anti-tank round and the answer is because it didn't need one.

I find that complexity (and realism) is often a trade off with gameplay and RPG's can be a nightmare for arguments with houserules, that is why I just made it a simple graphic that someone could show their players, without adding too much complexity.

Exactly. A 98 lbs 152mm common round will penetrate 3 to 4" of steel armor through a combination of mass and shock with no problem. As for complexity that is a matter of poor design in many cases. You can design it out if you try. I know, I have done so more than once.
It is just that the "elegant" answer often requrires more math and time than most people are capable of devoting to the problem.

 

[Dragoner]

I think the flechette system is just for shrapnel hits, different guns have different blast effects, the plasma A gun, hits like the FGMP and does 20d of damage for example, otherwise I think it's just meant for the shrapnel to act in an otherwise normal manner.

Speaking of weapons, also one could have a Plasma Flame Fougasse, that could be a bit of nastiness.

But even the Gauss Mine, I had a laugh, an evil GM could say: "you see a plastic box, with a red led flashing on top of it..." and the player might be predisposed to go to try to inspect it...oh the horror. :devil:

 

[Dragoner]

Exactly. A 98 lbs 152mm common round will penetrate 3 to 4" of steel armor through a combination of mass and shock with no problem. As for complexity that is a matter of poor design in many cases. You can design it out if you try. I know, I have done so more than once.
It is just that the "elegant" answer often requrires more math and time than most people are capable of devoting to the problem.

Real world stuff is easier, and more balance in and of itself because you see the cause and effect. You can see at Kursk, that the Soviets used their 85mm to good effect against the panther battalion, as one can see the photos and other docs and knows the penetration, range and even that most rounds would strike the panther in it's glacis area. Not so much here and I find that too often if you crunch "future numbers" it doesn't work, which is not to say it isn't realistic, but there are factors unaccounted for. However, ultimately, I believe in smooth gameplay as if it gets clumsy, nobody will play it and all ones hard work is down the drain. Though Designing weapons like this and OoBs, like with the SPG Battalion are fun in themselves, I used to do this as a kid as well, stating out military units, it can be fun to play on the squad level as well, but death can come fast and furious, which players find hard to stomach.

 

[BytePro]

With future tech comes future triage

When introducing new players to Traveller, I first have them play several PCs at a time - so they could overcome fear of risk and typical 'character attachment syndrome' and experience roleplaying various personalities. Medic skill being equally (or more so) as valuable as Gunner. :devil:

For every made up high tech weapon, I tried to create a counter defense - and a medical response. Of course, the hand held fusion grenades had me stumped on the latter...

 

[Madarin Dude]

The only way i can see the gauss mine as practical if it can be reloaded recharge the cap reload shrapnel rounds and give it another go. But as a disposable mine a waste.


150mm guns in squad leader were quite effective. We had the saying about the Brumbar point gun makes things go boom. That said I took an entire calliope rocket rack off a Sherman on a Tiger 1 and then returned fire and took out the offender so smaller rounds did not get though. (I think 32 81mm rockets)

 

[Dragoner]

With future tech comes future triage

When introducing new players to Traveller, I first have them play several PCs at a time - so they could overcome fear of risk and typical 'character attachment syndrome' and experience roleplaying various personalities. Medic skill being equally (or more so) as valuable as Gunner. :devil:

For every made up high tech weapon, I tried to create a counter defense - and a medical response. Of course, the hand held fusion grenades had me stumped on the latter...

I often have players roll up 2-3 characters for the same contingency reasons, and some people really burn through them.

Ultimate field medicine is the cold sleep chamber, load them in and then take them to a trauma center that can fix them up right.

The only way i can see the gauss mine as practical if it can be reloaded recharge the cap reload shrapnel rounds and give it another go. But as a disposable mine a waste.


150mm guns in squad leader were quite effective. We had the saying about the Brumbar point gun makes things go boom. That said I took an entire calliope rocket rack off a Sherman on a Tiger 1 and then returned fire and took out the offender so smaller rounds did not get though. (I think 32 81mm rockets)

Yes the Brummbar (Sturmpanzer IV actually is it's name) was an effective weapon, I made an SPG for that reason, the Hasslich or "Ugly".

Claymores aren't reloaded now, I'm not seeing why it would be anymore a waste. The GDM, like a Claymore can be strapped to the outside of a vehicle and detonated as a close defence weapon, this was done with claymore during Vietnam. There are plenty of uses for them, and they give the players a way to deal with heavy opposition without being too heavy themselves. I give anyone with combat rifleman skill their use, same with many other soldier's common tasks, like the bayonet drill.

 

[aramis]

And the fact that those darts are magneticaly propelled, instead of chemically whould give them much more letality? I'm not an expert on that, but my first guess is that not as much as to make up for the increased cost, and I'm affraid (again not expert on that) that those electic components would be more prone to breakdowns than explosives.

They're just as disposable.

The added benefits are:

• lack of Smoke
• Can be stepped down if you want light antipersonnel only or up to melt the coils levels for anti-armor
• Cost isn't going to be that much, and we can make them NOW
• The EM from it is not impressive but definitely noteworthy for several meters.
• if directionally shielded correctly, the EMR pulse can be directional;
  If not, it's it's own signal to base
• environmentally sealed
• Chemicals involved don't break down anywhere near as long
• If not used at max power, can be reloaded.
• won't set off chemical sniffers.
• much lower chance of fires.

Drawbacks:

• easier to reuse than chemically propelled ones.
• slightly more massive than CP ones.
• no concussion - just frag and EMR
• needs power source