Shadowrun
Shadowrun General => Gear => Topic started by: LionofPerth on <07-13-14/1336:54>
-
Greetings all
As I've been playing Sniper Elite 3 a bit of late, I've had something of an idea that would allow a clever group or player to deal with foes, assuming they're wearing grenades in sight and unaware, of detonating the grenade at distance.
Now, I'm aware that some explosive ordnance disposal is performed with high calibre weapons, though I do understand the size of the round is there for penetration of outer materials, as well as to ensure that any detonating mechanism for things like artillery shells, car bombs maybe, are pulverised, to put it lightly.
My questions, which I hope someone with some EOD/explosives training can answer, are my above perceptions accurate? If they're not accurate, how so?
Fellow GM's, how would you feel about a player trying to set off a grenade at distance? Would you let it happen? Would you limit it to grenades based on explosives, or could things like stun/concussion/flashbangs also have some effect?
Thanks ahead
-
A sufficiently powerful round can set off some explosives, for sure; a .308 rifle round will more likely than not detonate a standard fragmentation grenade with a direct hit, whereas something like 12ga buckshot fired from sufficiently close proximity will simply destroy the grenade. For other non-grenade ordnance you'd need more specific rules; ANFO (and other tertiary explosives like it) is incredibly stable, for instance, whereas good old fashioned nitroglycerin (and other primary explosives) can be extremely volatile.
I would let a player shoot an exposed grenade with a called shot; would be a difficult one as far as I'm concerned, likely necessitating a -8 dice pool modifier at the very least.
-
I would not let a person shoot a grenade, myself. The problem with doing so is that the case of the grenade is solid steel. The chances of setting off that explosive with something besides the fuse is pretty unlikely. They're designed that way, mostly because people carry them round on their person.
-
I'm a little of both minds on this, and it has actually come up in our advanced group a few times now...
How we resolve this is as follows:
If the explosive charge is detonated by: pressure, or heat.
If the barrier rating of the grenade is breeched, it goes boom. Target takes damage from the grenade ONLY, not the bullet. (This is to comply with SR's "no double dipping damage" rule)
If the barrier is not breeched, the grenade resists damage from the attack as normal, if 3 boxes of damage are done, the explosive is disabled and can not detonate.
If the explosive is detonated by some other means: water, air, electricity, etc...
The best the shooter can hope for is disabling the grenade...
This makes it possible to turn 'naders into a deterrent for groups, as now that 'nader is a possible ground zero for friendly AOE damage (ouch!), as well as giving some of the insanely high rolling gunbunnies a use to make them feel bad-ass (as the modifiers to hit a tiny, moving target, at range, are insanely high)
So far, it has worked well: But remember, "Good for the goose..."
-
this is total hogwash.
current high-safety modern explosives materiel (and Srun is another 60 years from now) can only be detonated with the right electronic signal.
you can chuck this stuff into an open fire, attach a car battery to it, run it over with a truck, toss it off the empire state building, put a stick of dynamite under it and none if would do anything to it.
if you lucky you might disable it by disrupting it's shape or casing (i.e. blow it to smithereens).
with grenades being carried on the person they should use the most safe and stable explosives.
now if your target is carrying grenades from ww2 (or even some current modern ones) you might get lucky.
Or I guess if the target is carrying some super cheapass grenades made with a lower safety/ class explosive.
ymmv
;-)
-
this is total hogwash.
current high-safety modern explosives materiel (and Srun is another 60 years from now) can only be detonated with the right electronic signal.
you can chuck this stuff into an open fire, attach a car battery to it, run it over with a truck, toss it off the empire state building, put a stick of dynamite under it and none if would do anything to it.
if you lucky you might disable it by disrupting it's shape or casing (i.e. blow it to smithereens).
with grenades being carried on the person they should use the most safe and stable explosives.
now if your target is carrying grenades from ww2 (or even some current modern ones) you might get lucky.
Or I guess if the target is carrying some super cheapass grenades made with a lower safety/ class explosive.
ymmv
;-)
This. Although dynamite *will* cause a secondary triggering of the explosives. That's how explosives work - the intense and instant heat and pressure causes a chain reaction spreading to the rest of the explosive matter. If that wasn't the case, an electric current wouldn't detonate the whole explosive, just the narrow path it flows into/through.
Granted, otherwise you can cook with the stuff. I would expect all corporate and military grenades to work like this.
Now, grenades that runners buy on the black market might be made on the street in drug labs or by other home grown arms dealers. Who knows what those grenades are packed full of. TNT or Dynamite would be pretty common (they were in WWII), and older grenades may be well past their expiration...
-
thanks for the clarification Jimmy.
FYI this is similar to the old movie "blow up the car by shooting the gas tank" crap.
Although I guess that has little relevance in 2073 due to no gasoline cars in most places.
Mythbusters is you friend for most of these types of questions.
this is total hogwash.
current high-safety modern explosives materiel (and Srun is another 60 years from now) can only be detonated with the right electronic signal.
you can chuck this stuff into an open fire, attach a car battery to it, run it over with a truck, toss it off the empire state building, put a stick of dynamite under it and none if would do anything to it.
if you lucky you might disable it by disrupting it's shape or casing (i.e. blow it to smithereens).
with grenades being carried on the person they should use the most safe and stable explosives.
now if your target is carrying grenades from ww2 (or even some current modern ones) you might get lucky.
Or I guess if the target is carrying some super cheapass grenades made with a lower safety/ class explosive.
ymmv
;-)
This. Although dynamite *will* cause a secondary triggering of the explosives. That's how explosives work - the intense and instant heat and pressure causes a chain reaction spreading to the rest of the explosive matter. If that wasn't the case, an electric current wouldn't detonate the whole explosive, just the narrow path it flows into/through.
Granted, otherwise you can cook with the stuff. I would expect all corporate and military grenades to work like this.
Now, grenades that runners buy on the black market might be made on the street in drug labs or by other home grown arms dealers. Who knows what those grenades are packed full of. TNT or Dynamite would be pretty common (they were in WWII), and older grenades may be well past their expiration...
-
If i remember correctly, the Mythbusters did a show on this exact subject. I think the high powered rifle set them off while the buckshot and 45 pistol destroyed it without setting it off.
-
wrong type of explosive, they used a binary one iirc.
we're talking more like advanced RDX
If i remember correctly, the Mythbusters did a show on this exact subject. I think the high powered rifle set them off while the buckshot and 45 pistol destroyed it without setting it off.
-
Do we know what kind of batteries SR cars use? Some designs could totally be explosive, though normal bullets probably wouldn't do the trick. Still, hit a hydrogen fuel cell with a tracer and you might get some fireworks.
-
Do we know what kind of batteries SR cars use? Some designs could totally be explosive, though normal bullets probably wouldn't do the trick. Still, hit a hydrogen fuel cell with a tracer and you might get some fireworks.
Nope. Hydrogen fuel cells are a solid state device that uses hydrogen to power a catalytic process, turning the cell into a giant discharging diode. They don't cook off, or ignite when exposed fflame. At least the ones Ballard makes today. (I worked with and installed them for the city of Vancouver Metro buses back in 98.)
-
To the naysayers; check your facts before spouting off.
A high-energy round (like a .308 round, which has ballistic energy of over 3500 J at the muzzle) can substitute for the function of the grenade fuse (or primary explosive/detonator, if you prefer) if it penetrates the steel outer shell and impacts the Comp B charge (which is essentially a mix of RDX and TNT, both of which are secondary explosives) of a modern day US hand grenade like the M67.
Keep in mind that a FMJ .308 will penetrate anything from 1/4" to 1/2" thick steel plate at 300m, depending on the type of steel used. There's a reason marksmen use so-called "gongs", 3/8" thick armored steel plates" for target practice at 500m+. The steel case of a hand grenade like the M67, which is designed to fragment and not to stand up to direct hits from a high-power round like a .308, will most likely not be able to stand up to said round if a direct hit is scored, and the resulting energy exchange will more likely than not set off the grenade.
A lower-power round, as mentioned above about Mythbusters and a .45 and 12ga buckshot (I haven't seen this one, does anyone know which episode it is) would more likely than not simply destroy the outer casing without causing the grenade to go off, as they are not energy-rich enough to substitute for the role of the primary explosive.
Now, if we're talking modern compound explosives this changes dramatically because these are what I referred to as tertiary explosives; yes, you can technically shoot a bullet through a brick of C4, but I'd be hella wary to be anywhere near someone deciding to give that a try. Besides, explosives are not usually carried on the outside of a tactical vest like a hand grenade is, so it's more plausible for a grenade to be a target than a brick of explosives.
-
To the naysayers; check your facts before spouting off
You are assuming shadowrun grenades are built like modern grenades. Considering shadowrun firearms are significantly redesigned, I imagine TNT and RDX do not factor into 2075 grenade manufacture.
Unless you've got a reference you'd like to cite?
-
Jimmy Crisis
You'll note that the OP asked this:
My questions, which I hope someone with some EOD/explosives training can answer, are my above perceptions accurate? If they're not accurate, how so?
How do you propose someone with ROD experience answer this question if not relating it to real world facts and experiences, so that the OP can make up his own mind about future tech?
If you choose not to relate your answer to the OPs question, what are you even doing here? Anyone can speculate wildly about SR tech, but in this case the OP asked a very specific question, which I chose to answer with facts and my own experiences, rather than wild conjecture and/or speculation.
As if that wasn't enough, you'll also do well to note that while some SR firearms tech has changed, but you'll note that things like ballistic efficiency has not. Sniper rifles still have comparable range, and only assault cannons and other heavy weapons are likely to reliably pierce armored vehicles, and explosives are still deadly. To me, this exemplifies that while we have some new tech, the basics remain the same in general as for modern tech.
-
Segregate your answer into real world applicability and 2075 future tech.
We are all speculating wildly about future technology. Considering that shadowrun technology has evolved separately from our current timeline since at least the year 2000, I would hazard a guess that 75 years of weapons evolution might just throw any modern 'real world' expertise out the goddamn window.
So the question is, what kind of grenades would a corporation issue to HTR teams or local tactical units?
-
And I answered with a real world example, leaving the OP free to speculate based on my experience, something which he asked for.
You've changed your position a couple times, seconded information that quite frankly is blatantly incorrect (showing how much knowledge both posters actually have of modern explosives technology), and taken this discussion to a level at which I'm not willing to engage.
I'm out.
To the OP; I'd be more than happy to provide you with accurate information on modern day explosives if you're interested; I would encourage you to do some research for yourself regarding the claims made by myself and others in this thread to discover what is actually true about modern explosives.
-
Well that escalated quickly. I didn't mean to insult you, if you think that's the problem?
This sounds like you've got the wrong idea of me, so I'm just gonna drop it.
It would have been nice to learn something relevant about the Shadowrun rules and how they relate to modern explosives, but we would need to be discussing that, not arguing about it. Still, anyone have a reference for what they pack in grenades? SR3 or SR4 would be the best to look through. Maybe Cannon Companion or Man & Machine has something.
-
To the OP; I'd be more than happy to provide you with accurate information on modern day explosives if you're interested; I would encourage you to do some research for yourself regarding the claims made by myself and others in this thread to discover what is actually true about modern explosives.
Indeed, perhaps another PM on the matter might be order martin.
I have seen the Mythbusters episode in question, as well as some reading on the matter myself. Hence the question to be honest. The information I can access suggests that while the explosive base for the grenade is highly stable, the detonating mechanism/blasting cap is much less stable. Enough that when I saw the Mythbusters episode in question, I did predict that the .308 round would set it off.
The way I see it is that if the detonator for the grenade in question is sufficiently sensitive, then any significant shock could trigger it. While you could hit it hard with a hammer, that shouldn't do it. A rifle round on the other hand, does have a significant amount of energy and could provide enough energy to do it.
I'd also point to a reply or comment from a previous post, whoever said it, please forgive me as I can't think of your username, that when a 40mm launched grenade is fine to drop, but if it rolled down hill, you called EOD to handle it. While the situation is different, it sounds like somewhere inside it, after the gyroscopic safeties have been deactivated, is in fact quite sensitive to impact, shock.
I've also heard a few stories relating to using .50cal to defuse IED's, some of them exploding. My guess in this last instance is that rather than the explosives going off, a sufficiently sensitive detonator, blasting cap, was triggered, causing the chain reaction required for the blast.
-
In SR5 HTR would be using hand grenades or mini grenades that are triggered wireless. Have your decker either hack a mark on the owner and spoof detonation commands to the explosives or hack the explosive and remote control it to detonate.
As for cars that start to burn and explode the second they crash or are shot at (or even free fall towards the ground); That only happens in Hollywood. Same with people that don't fall straight down when being shot. But Hollywood realism is more fun. It look cooler. For this reason SR5 also use a lot of Hollywood realism whenever applicable. And for this reason, and this reason alone, I think you should make some house rules for your gun bunny or sniper to let them set of explosives by shooting at them ;)
-
Well said, Xenon. Though I vehemently disagree on bodies flying around when shot, but that's just a personal preference ;)
-
In SR5 HTR would be using hand grenades or mini grenades that are triggered wireless. Have your decker either hack a mark on the owner and spoof detonation commands to the explosives or hack the explosive and remote control it to detonate.
As for cars that start to burn and explode the second they crash or are shot at (or even free fall towards the ground); That only happens in Hollywood. Same with people that don't fall straight down when being shot. But Hollywood realism is more fun. It look cooler. For this reason SR5 also use a lot of Hollywood realism whenever applicable. And for this reason, and this reason alone, I think you should make some house rules for your gun bunny or sniper to let them set of explosives by shooting at them ;)
I think my idea is on the hard side of Hollywood realism, but still, some boom and blasts, including hitting grenades at range to make them go off. Plus I figure it makes for a great story to tell about past characters.
-
I love it how in most cases when discussing weapons, someone comes in to tell about their extreme expertise on the subject. Not just here, but in general.
Anyway, I think that it depends on the campaign and how you want to play it. If you're going with the rule of cool, allow it. Even if you are going in the more realistic direction of a campaign, a player might give that as an idea to get out of a tough situation.
I'm not going to start discussing real-life grenades here since as someone pointed out, there's been 70 years or so of weapon development in the SR universe.
Though just a few days ago my group got mad at me when I told them that a car that was set aflame exploded because "that doesn't happen in real life". Handwaved it off by saying that there was a crate of grenades inside as well, which the players quickly agreed to as an explanation.
-
Leevizer
You'll note that real world knowledge was specifically asked for by the person who started this thread...
And the fact that your players needed an explanation for why a car spontaneously blew up should be an indication to you.
-
Leevizer
You'll note that real world knowledge was specifically asked for by the person who started this thread...
And the fact that your players needed an explanation for why a car spontaneously blew up should be an indication to you.
And the real world knowledge turned into "my gun experience is better" kind of talk. Thankfully not too bad, though (the best example I can think of is when people talked about the Rainforest Carbine)
And I'm not entirely sure what you're hinting at with that last comment? And like I said, the car was set aflame and then exploded. To elaborate further, the front wheel of the car got hit by an explosive bolt from a heavy crossbow, blowing the wheel clean off after which I told the players that there was fire and smoke starting to rise from the car.
The reason why I thought I'd say it was because the campaign is full of stunts, hollywood-ish stuff and such so it came off to me as odd to have players call me out on having a vehicle explode since "that's not how it happens in real life".
-
If the fact that an attempt to correct blatantly wrong information comes across to you as a pissing contest, we really have nothing more to discuss.
Have a good one.
-
JimmyCrisis, Leevizer;
Why act surprised that someone with real life explosions training contribute to a thread where the OP specifically asked: "My questions, which I hope someone with some EOD/explosives training can answer..."?
-
I guess I exaggerated slightly. I've just seen a fair share of threads in which people start crusading about their weapons experience and start raging if someone dares question their knowledge as a weapons expert. Like I said in the first message, this wasn't a bad case as I have seen but had some of the same things they usually have.
So if you got offended by me having a laugh to myself over here, I apologize.
...And I guess I should mention I spent an year in the Finnish Defense Forces. I know something about weaponry as well, so I'm not trying to make fun of gun enthusiasts for being gun enthusiasts.
-
JimmyCrisis, Leevizer;
Why act surprised that someone with real life explosions training contribute to a thread where the OP specifically asked: "My questions, which I hope someone with some EOD/explosives training can answer..."?
Why are you bringing me back into this?
I'm not surprised at all, except for the gruff attitude.
I understand that martinchaen is pissed, and I get it's because the first response he got started with "That's all hogwash", which is basically calling him a liar to his face. Honestly, I skimmed that the first time, so the barb didn't sink in until I went back a reread it, AFTER I started getting a bunch of flak and high-and-mighties coming my way, which I really didn't appreciate but ultimately were intended for someone else. I get that. No harm done, no hurt feelings. For my part in making martinchaen feel undervalued, I sincerely apologize and thank you, Sir, for your service.
The unresolved issue I brought up concerned the idea that Shadowrun operates on future-tech, which while weaponry superficially resembles many things we use today, it's been mucked up, reworked and redesigned. This means that it is very likely grenades do not work the same in SR as they do today. Similar to how a 1911 today uses a firing pin whereas the SR analog uses electronic ignition with no moving parts. Superficially they are similar, but fundamentally different. My point is; if security personnel are going to carry grenades on-campus, the corporations will want those grenades to be as stable as possible. From my perspective, that means that they would use the same analog to C4 that falls under 'military explosives' in the book. I think it's more reasonable that they would use that instead of TNT, which may be a liability (either from small arms fire or actual fire). If martinchaen could speak to the reliability and stability of modern grenade fuses & charges, that would a helpful addition to the conversation as it continues.
I also asked if there were any actual references in any edition about what explosive is used in grenades, to which I received disdain as my only response.
That tells me that the other side has either nothing to contribute or no valid refutation, which leaves us at an impasse. Regardless, I am genuinely curious to know the answer to that question, so much so that I'll no doubt spend the next couple hours combing though my own collection of PDFs and old books, but that is not nearly a complete sample of the collected SR publications.
-
Jimmy, I'd have to disagree with you on that.
While the mechanism to trigger the detonator cap, that's generally a primary explosive. That primary explosive can actually be quite shock sensitive. Generally it's another explosive that triggers the main explosive, secondary explosive. All that would have changed is the fuse, which instead of being chemical based, is now electrical.
As for the argument, seventy years means a great deal of difference in technology, I would again, have to disagree. While the quality of current explosives is significantly greater than it was in WW1 and WW2, I would challenge the underlying principles and technology is not that different to modern devices. Again, there have been advances and those advances have made the devices on a whole, safer (more shock resistant units, modern artillery shells you can smack the tip with a sledge hammer, they need to be fired before they will arm) for the user and more lethal (more force released by the explosive, faster shards etc) for the target, the underlying principle of shrapnel, high velocity fragments of a hard outer casing, has not changed much.
As it turns out, it's older than I even I thought, General Shrapnel died in 1842. So it has been around a very long time.
I suppose the example I'd give here as well, is the progression from the M1 Garand to the M14, now to M14 EBR. It's fundamentally the same mechanism, just each iteration has been refined, gained new capabilities such as automatic fire, as well as degrees of precision. Much the same has happened here. While the end unit has always seemed different, more advanced, the same underlying principles are still the same, that is a controlled explosion to drive a mixed metal projectile down a barrel with a great deal of force when it strikes a target.
Again, thanks for the e-mail martin. Helped clear a few things up.
-
My pleasure, LionofPerth.
As far a so can tell, the books contain no reference to which kind of explosives are used to form the charge of a grenade.
That being said, Arsenal does list a variety of common, real world explosives as being available (TNT and ANFO are good examples), while also expanding upon known variants )like C12).
-
Martin, good buddy!
i think you threw a wobbly without appreciating that what I said in my original post was 100% in concordance with what you said.
That's ok, I understand, sometimes it's tough being on the internet.
Any self respecting combat personage in the 6th world would want some very safe grenades strapped to their chests because of fireballs, lightning bolts and what not.
Current miilitary grade explosives are pretty close to being good enough, this entry on RDX one of the most common ones is telling:
"At room temperature, it is very stable. It burns rather than explodes and detonates only with a detonator, being unaffected even by small arms fire. (This is one of the properties that make it a useful military explosive.) It is less sensitive than pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN). However, it is very sensitive when crystallized, below −4 °C.[citation needed] Under normal conditions, RDX has a figure of insensitivity of exactly 80 (RDX defines the reference point.)."
In the mythbusters episode noted they seem to have shot a two part explosive (yeah i already noted this in a previous post, sometimes you need to restate so people grok what you said), perhaps hitting the detonator (a pencil thin part of the grenade).
Now imagine an electrically detonated version of RDX (or other modern explosive) that requires a specific sinewave pattern to detonate it (so no blasting caps, no lightning bolts, no bullets to set it off).
Hard to imagine?
Not for me given the advancements and pervasiveness of nanotech.
However I do agree with you (and did previously), if your buying 60 year old grenades and they are of the right type a super accurate rifle shot could set one off, but given you are shooting at a pencil sized (or smaller) object embedded in a circular, metal skinned item that is on someone's chest and moving even that scenario is, well, unlikely.
Might as well shoot for the dude's eyeball, it's about the same size.
as always, ymmv.
-
My pleasure, LionofPerth.
As far a so can tell, the books contain no reference to which kind of explosives are used to form the charge of a grenade.
That being said, Arsenal does list a variety of common, real world explosives as being available (TNT and ANFO are good examples), while also expanding upon known variants )like C12).
No chance you got the reply I sent? There were a few more things in it I'd hoped you could help with.
-
i think you threw a wobbly without appreciating that what I said in my original post was 100% in concordance with what you said.
I'll be honest, I have absolutely no clue what you're saying here. My first language isn't English, so you'll have to be a little more concise next time if you want to get your point across.
In the mythbusters episode noted they seem to have shot a two part explosive (yeah i already noted this in a previous post, sometimes you need to restate so people grok what you said), perhaps hitting the detonator (a pencil thin part of the grenade).
I can't speak for the Mythbusters episode as I haven't seen it, but how much do you know about ballistic theory?
Allow me to explain; when a ballistic round (.308 caliber rifle round, for example) penetrates an object (whether that object is a human body or a grenade), the kinetic energy of the round imparts a shockwave through said object. This shockwave is what kills most people who die instantly from a gunshot; it's called shock trauma, and it destroys the tissue surrounding the entry, path, and exit of the round. You don't need to hit someone's heart to cause it to stop beating; a sufficiently powerful round impacting center mass can be enough all by itself. Now, a large part of gunshot wounds do NOT kill instantly, and those who end up dying later on usually do so because exanguination (bleeding out, whether internal or external).
When a relatively large round like the .308 hits the relatively small body of a grenade, there are very few places for the kinetic energy to go; thus, whether you hit the detonator straight on or just hit the composition charge around it, the shockwave will likely be of sufficient energy to set off the primary explosive.
This is fairly basic stuff, and it hasn't changed much in the last 100 years. We've made guns more accurate, capable of firing more rounds in less time, and we've increased caliber sizes (.338, a common rifle round for military snipers these days were developed back in the 80s as far as I know).
Now imagine an electrically detonated version of RDX (or other modern explosive) that requires a specific sinewave pattern to detonate it (so no blasting caps, no lightning bolts, no bullets to set it off).
A secondary explosive (like RDX) still requires a primary explosive to set it off. No matter how much you zap it with a "specific sinewave pattern" RDX still wouldn't detonate, with the possible exception of extremely high voltage and/or amperage (think lightning strike, and honestly, if you can harness the power of lightning to set off a grenade why aren't we just making lightning grenades...).
Look at the explosives section of the Arsenal book; notice how there are still ordinary detonators there? Sure, there are some fancier ones too, but they all have one thing in common; a primary explosive that functions as the "detonator" part of the "[whatever fancy trigger mechanism is used] detonator".
And a primary explosive can be set off by the kinetic energy imparted on a round, such as a .308...
Hard to imagine?
Yes, quite frankly.
What you describe makes absolutely no sense to me. If you want to handwave it with "because X", you might as well just say "because magic", which I personally find to be an insufficient argument. Explosives are real, as are the principles of the physics that apply to them; there is no need to come up with alternate methods when modern day tech is based on principles that are hundreds, if not thousands, of years old.
Not for me given the advancements and pervasiveness of nanotech.
Good for you.
Nanotech would still need to trigger a primary explosive in order to set off a secondary explosive, unless "because nanotech" is a sufficient explanation for why the laws of thermodynamics can suddenly be circumvented to your mind.
It isn't for me, and please try to refrain from pandering quite as much in the future. I see no need for theatrics in a factual debate.
LionofPerth; I'll check once I get home, if I got it I must have overlooked it.
-
sorry if my odd vernacular threw you, your english is certainly way better than my knowledge of whichever is your mother tongue.
hehe if I can imagine magic then yeah a future tech version of explosive seems, well, easy.
I mean, those magical fireball spells etc aren't tied to the first law of thermodynamics, har!
regardless, whether you agree or disagree that explosives will advance to make them more safe in the next 60 years (much like they did in the past what, 70 years, since RDX et al came on the scene) that's neither here nor there.
let's get back to the meat of this, shooting a pencil you can't see (it's inside something else) with a sniper rifle from what, oh let's say 300 yards while the target is moving.
Now that's something worthy of a miracle!
but then I guess, EDGE.
so hah!
right?
-
Again, look above. You just need to hit the grenade; the primary explosive contained in the detonator is sensitive enough to shock that the kinetic energy of a .308 round almost certainly will do it, regardless of whether or not you actually hit the detonator itself, while not being so sensitive that say dropping the grenade on the floor would set it off.
Modern handgrenades are considered relatively safe; there's a reason a lot of soldiers carry them...
Ultimately, my point is this;
There is absolutely no need as far as I'm concerned to invent some new fangled super-explosive that doesn't obey current, known laws of physics, because the published material still references TNT, RDX, Composition explosives, ANFO, blasting caps, radio detonators, and more, all of which exist today. I don't think a single item in the Arsenal book doesn't exist, today with the possible exception of Wireless Detonators and Composition 12 explosives.
-
well i find sources saying the RDX can't be set off with small arms fire.
so I guess either my sources are incorrect/ not detailed enough OR yours are.
now I'm no explosives expert, I just know how to use the internets.
here's another quote to the one i pasted in before:
"Just as with other explosives, you need to apply some energy to C-4 to kick off the chemical reaction. Because of the stabilizer elements, it takes a considerable shock to set off this reaction; lighting the C-4 with a match will just make it burn slowly, like a piece of wood (in Vietnam, soldiers actually burned C-4 as an improvised cooking fire). Even shooting the explosive with a rifle won't trigger the reaction. Only a detonator, or blasting cap will do the job properly."
if you've got some direct experience setting RDX off with small arms then you've got me there.
I've never fired a bullet at a brick of RDX.
wish I had, but sorry to say I haven't.
;-)
-
You're correct, RDX can't be set off by gunfire (in my experience, and to my knowledge; I've never fired something like a .50cal or bigger round at some), but you'll note that that's not what I'm saying at all.
I really can't explain it much simpler than this:
A modern day grenade consists of two types of explosives; a relatively unstable primary, and a relatively stable secondary.
The primary explosive is contained in the detonator (ASA compound is often used; mix of chemicals I'm not entirely sure of, though a Google search would probably return the components)
The secondary explosive is packed tightly around the detonator, and in turn surrounded by a metal casing (at least for modern day fragmentation grenade, where the comp B charge is usually 60/40 RDX/TNT with some wax to keep it more stable).
If you hit the grenade with a sufficiently powerful round, the unstable primary explosive is detonated by the shock caused by the kinetic energy of the projectile.
This in turn detonates the stable secondary explosive.
Your quote nails it right on the head; "considerable shock". The amount of shock needed for it to be "considerable" varies with each type of explosive (primary, secondary, or tertiary).
There's a reason EOD robots are equipped with shotguns; the relative kinetic energy contained in each shot is not sufficient to trigger the primary explosive, so you just destroy the shell.
Once again, you're not shooting the grenade to set off the stable secondary explosive (because that wouldn't work), but to trigger the unstable primary explosive (which will in turn detonate the stable secondary explosive).
You said it yourself, you're not an explosives expert. You'll need to do a little more research into ballistics and explosives if the above doesn't make sense to you, because I don't know how else to break it down.
-
yeah but when you say primary explosive you're talking about the detonator, right?
and that's why i said hitting a pencil sized detonator that you can't see while it's moving with a sniper rifle at range is almost impossible.
but maybe you weren't talking about the detonator?
-
Note:
The electrical charge of a blasting cap is actually DC, thus, no sinewave......
Now back to the agruement at hand...
<eats popcorn, opens a beer>
-
oh this is most certainly a discussion!
-
*sighs*
Listen, no offense, but if you can't understand what I'm trying to tell you above, I don't think we have much more to talk about.
For the last time; you don't need to hit the detonator directly. Hitting the grenade itself is enough, because the energy of the round will travel through the secondary explosive to the primary, thus setting off the unstable part of the grenade which in turns sets off the stable part of the grenade. This isn't rocket science...
What part of this does not make sense to you?
A modern day grenade consists of two types of explosives; a relatively unstable primary, and a relatively stable secondary.
The primary explosive is contained in the detonator
The secondary explosive is packed tightly around the detonator
If you hit the grenade with a sufficiently powerful round, the unstable primary explosive is detonated by the shock caused by the kinetic energy of the projectile.
This in turn detonates the stable secondary explosive.
-
haha are you sure this isn't rocket science?
I mean some of these explosives are used as rocket fuel....
ok now i get what you're saying, thanks for sticking with me here (i know it's gotta be a pain to be doing this in your second or third language).
i dig it now!
a modern grenade's detonator can be detonated without hitting it itself via secondary concussion by a very high kinetic energy round impacting the enveloping explosive.
cool!
now what happens when you add in 60+ more years of development and crap?
I dunno, i mean how could we KNOW?
all we can do is guess.
and given that RDX did not exist, what, 80 years ago?
then i'd hazard a guess that we'd see some significant safety improvements in the next 60 or so years.
but, as always, ymmv.
thanks for the discussion, it was fun!
-
Short version for those who don't have an understanding of what a bullet does to a body, go find a Mythbusters episode in which you see them shoot a piece of ballistics gel and you get a slow motion shot of it. See the way the bullet trail expands and contracts. That's the wake of the bullet, this is where a whole heap of organ shredding damage is done. It's why you can hit a person, have the bullet out the other side, without actually hitting any organs and still kill. That much velocity produces a lot of energy (Force= mass x velocity, Physics people) and that energy has to go somewhere.
Also physics, as a rule, energy has to go somewhere. In this case, chemical potential energy is turned into kinetic energy and that transfer of kinetic energy, the less said the better.
In the case of a grenade, it doesn't particularly matter how the primary explosive is triggered, be it a chemical fuse or an electrical one, there's still potentially enough kinetic energy from the impact, to not only pierce the steel case, but to trigger the primary explosive. If that primary explosive goes off, it's almost guaranteed to set of the secondary explosive, or main charge of the grenade.
Here's the thing, not all steels are equal at the best of times. It's get even more confusing when you just compare stainless steel to carbon steel. There's a lot to it. That while it's steel that is the outer body of a grenade, it doesn't mean if you're behind an inch of the same grade material at 300m you can laugh off heavy, repeated impacts.
Longer version, play Sniper Elite 3 on the harder difficulties or with full ballistics. Adjust for windage, lead, drop, learn to fire from good stances and my god, do everything you can to hide your shots. In addition to learning how to eye ball distance and windage, you can get an idea of what you can and can't shoot through. On top of that a very intimate and on some level worryingly understated view of just how bad bullets are for people. See the attached video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ90DP0XwC4
So apart from fuel tank explosions, it's about as close as many of us to it and I'm thankful for that fact.
adzling,
See my some of my posts on the matter. Sixty, seventy years, the basic idea behind the grenade hasn't changed that much in hundreds of years.
-
hey lion!
yeah the idea of the grenade has not changed (much) but the explosives inside has.
and likely would continue to evolve as explosives have....
for example plastic explosives came about around ww2, which was about i dunno, 70 years ago?
the research i am seeing online all seems to be around how the explosives are binded/ modified to make them more stable/ provide more explosive force.
interesting stuff
considering they have made some significant break throughs in the past 5 years i would expect this to continue
but if you want to fix all R&D to currently available tech that's cool
it's your game ;-)
with all the wireless fancy PANs folks use you can get wireless triggered grenades that explode from a silent order of your brain, no vocalizations required.
and hey you can't do that today!
-
Care to work through that procedure?
The wireless signal does what exactly? (List it out, step by step from signal to detonation...)
-
with a wireless trigger you can remote detonate an explosive (in this instance a grenade).
Layer in Srun's PAN and a mind-link (for example a smart-link which allows you to fire your smartgun without physically pulling the trigger, but other mind control links should work fine too, like for example a cyber comlink that can send a text to your grenade with the word "boom" or some special unique password like "boom diggity!") and you can detonate your grenade wirelessly by thought.
I would imagine that a multi-mode detonator would be commonplace for grenades in 2070.
i.e. it would have timed, contact, motion, distance-travelled and wireless trigger options available.
this would let you cover almost all the bases for how it might be triggered and let you use it as a conventional timed or contact grenade as well as a small mine or remotely detonated explosive.
you just tell it which one is going to be used before you throw it...or hells after you throw it
if course it wouldnt do any of this (i.e. it couldn't be armed) until you physically pull the pin, you don't want a decker hacking your 'nades!
i'm sure there's others that could be dreamed up, like a grenade that interrogates the wireless PANs in it's blast vicinity, logs them as friend or foe and either triggers or doesn't, etcetc
-
So, I spent a couple hours going through Cannon Companion, Arsenal, Run & Gun and the core books for SR3,4&5. There isn't any reference for what kind of explosives are used in grenades.
From what I've gleaned, it appears that it doesn't matter what the secondary explosive is when the primary explosive (the detonator) will react when being shot. So that brings me to this:
SR5 Page 436
Commercial explosives: A range of explosive compounds, both solid and liquid, are available to the construction industry for all their destructive needs.
Plastic explosives: These highly stable moldable, and adhesive explosive compounds are military grade. They’re ideal for certain jobs, like breaching walls. They are usually color-tinted to indicate the level of current needed to detonate them, from the black of magnetic- field induction to the chalky white of 440-volt industrial explosives.
Detonator cap: This detonator is inserted into a mass of explosives and set off either by a programmable timer or radio signal. Setting the timer takes a Complex Action. Wireless: You can set the detonator’s timer with a Simple Action. You can also set it off without a countdown as a Free Action.
Run & Gun goes on to describe multiple types of detonators, two of which are important to this discussion:
Blasting Caps
These use a primary explosive charge and come in many different flavors, including electric, non-electric and fuse caps. They are the most commonly used construction and demolition, or in other words, commercial explosives.
Electrical Detonators
These use no explosives at all but are designed to dump an electric charge to detonate an electrically sensitive explosives, i.e. military grade explosives like C12.
Furthermore, any kind of detonator can be used to set off TNT, if that is still the secondary explosive in grenades in 2075.
I imagine some grenades would use TNT, and others would use C12. More potent explosives mean more bang in a smaller package, so it would make sense that if C12 is the new primary military explosive, grenades would use that instead so soldiers could carry more of them, assuming it's economically viable. Now, R&G says Nitroglycerin has an explosive rating of 6, but makes no mention of TNT. I'm going to assume this means TNT is also a rating 6 commercial explosive, and not a rating 12 or 25 military explosive. I could be wrong. TNT costs 100 nuyen to make, which puts it in the ballpark of commercial grade (also 100 nuyen to buy), while plastic explosive is 100 x rating to buy or 200 x rating to make. It seems to be more economical to make grenades out of commercial grade explosives from this perspective. Either way, I imagine militaries would have switched to electrical detonators entirely, if only so that the grenade fuses could be re-purposed for detonating C12.
I would like to add that Shadowrun explosives have always been ridiculously under powered by weight. 1kg of commercial explosives should do way more than 6 damage. Grenades have always been much deadlier in the setting. I'm not going to use that argument to say that commercial explosives don't go into grenades - it's just a stupid holdover that should have been corrected many editions ago.
-
C12 is an unknown; if it is anything like C4 it is, again, mostly RDX (80-90% if my memory serves me right). Modern grenades use Comp B, which is as previously mentioned a 60/40 (roughly) mix of RDX and TNT.
RDX was discovered around 1900, and saw widespread use in WWII and all the way up until modern times, as it forms the basis of most military explosives (Composition B, Semtex, C-4).
Nitroglycerin is highly unstable in it's raw, liquid state, and is considered a primary explosive, unlike TNT and RDX.
The part about electrical detonators in SR5 Run & Gun changes everything from a setting perspective; this is technology we don't have today.
In essence, then, it'll have to be up to the GM, as always, because we don't know enough about C12 and electrical detonators (that do not contain any explosives) to make a real world comparison.
I will say that I think it is highly doubtful that the militaries of the world would have switched wholesale; as for the OP's question, you'd have to decide for yourself if this kind of intimate explosives knowledge is something the player character possesses, after you decide if the grenade he's targeting is using a primary explosive or electrical fuse.
I think my biggest issue with C12 being electrically sensitive is that there is no real world equivalent whatsoever for this; the only explosives that can be triggered by electricity are primary class explosives, and they are all unstable in other ways as well. Chalk this one up to "science!", I guess.
In any case, now that my point has finally gotten across, my work here is done :)
-
So basically, you can stick and shock an electrically sensitive explosive to go boom.
Has anyone raised the question of using explosive ammo for detonating explosives yet? I might have missed it.
-
So basically, you can stick and shock an electrically sensitive explosive to go boom.
Has anyone raised the question of using explosive ammo for detonating explosives yet? I might have missed it.
The rules my group uses, that just affects the PV and DV of weapon as normal. "KISS" method.
-
So basically, you can stick and shock an electrically sensitive explosive to go boom.
Has anyone raised the question of using explosive ammo for detonating explosives yet? I might have missed it.
The rules my group uses, that just affects the PV and DV of weapon as normal. "KISS" method.
So your group has no objections to, say, Silencers and explosive ammo used in conjunction? Especially at short ranges?
Rules-wise it is obviously a good idea to keep it simple (which we do in our group as well), but I think the question here is more of a flavourful one for roleplaying out different situations? If the situation is something that requires electricity, explosives or whatnot and the player has a good idea for his special ammunition to come to use, why not let him try?
-
EX ammo does not necessarily imply high explosive grenade-like detonations, Leevizer.
The only real world equivalent I can think of is 12.7mm Raufoss MultiPurpose ammo. I've fired these myself, and even though they are high explosive, armor penetrating, incendiary rounds (yes, really...), in my experience the impact and detonation of the round itself isn't any louder than a regular FMJ 12.7mm round.
If you do Hollywood style explosions and silencers, this obviously changes a lot of things...
-
Did you fire this ammunition with a silencer on the weapon? Was the weapon a pistol? Was your target ballistic gelatin (or a human) wearing impact-resistant armour? Were you indoors? Did you employ anything to protect your hearing? Was he moving? Had the Decker turned the lights off of the building? Had the mage already checked for Astral security?
Also, the thingamajig ammunition (Raufoss MultiPurpose) you are referring to does not operate on the same shaped-charge principle as the explosive ammo in Shadowrun does.
I think it'd be good for both of us to stop discussing this though. My opinion is that with the return of magic and the technological advancements in the SR universe combined with the fact that it's supposed to be an RPG, I find little value in discussing the finer points of weaponry and firearms in the real world. Sure, the laws of thermodynamics etc. apply. But actual weapon experience isn't going to do much good. Unless it is explicitly requested. Like it was. Because then it will turn into an argument between rule of cool versus real gun experience, usually with people with gun experience also arguing between themselves.
Anyway, on a more serious note... I'd like the question about electric ammunition and electrically sensitive explosives answered? Or what about casting lightning bolt or such at the explosive? Are there spells that could blow up grenades, other than pulling the pin with magic fingers?
-
So basically, you can stick and shock an electrically sensitive explosive to go boom.
Has anyone raised the question of using explosive ammo for detonating explosives yet? I might have missed it.
The rules my group uses, that just affects the PV and DV of weapon as normal. "KISS" method.
So your group has no objections to, say, Silencers and explosive ammo used in conjunction? Especially at short ranges?
Rules-wise it is obviously a good idea to keep it simple (which we do in our group as well), but I think the question here is more of a flavourful one for roleplaying out different situations? If the situation is something that requires electricity, explosives or whatnot and the player has a good idea for his special ammunition to come to use, why not let him try?
They have in fact. Then do double face palm as I describe the low intensity pops the EX ammo makes, thus ruining their suppressed shot being unnoticed...
-
To challenge that the military would have gone to latest technology, I doubt that. If there's anything I've learned from speaking to a number of people serving, from all over the world, is that the military inevitably goes towards the most reliable technology or systems that they can. It doesn't so much matter if it's tanks or vehicles, personal armour, rifles, explosives. What can do the job in the most circumstances with the least amount of difficult. I would suspect that they would have stayed with, on a whole, basic technology and systems, including gyroscopic safeties, chemical fuses and the like. Simple reason, you can't hack a classic. While they have a great deal of technology, many different forms of training give the soldier the potential, ability, to act and continue acting when that technology fails. While electronic warfare plays a large part in Shadowrun warfare, battles, much the same as magic does. The basic art of soldiery would be very much the same in mind.
That hasn't changed much in a while and unless something even more severe than magic, dragons, returning to the world happens, that's not going to change.
The current troubles with the F-35 are proof that design by council works in Russia (RPG 7) not America (F-35).
In theory, I can't accept electrically detonated explosives. That is pure current leads to the chain reaction. In my mind, it's too unsafe, especially since lightning bolts can be thrown about in this world. To a degree, I can accept electrically fired rounds, it's because it's just an electrically induced spark to a propellant charge. Things like Metal Storm, anything with stacked projectiles uses this. I see a source of ignition and a charge. Straight current just doesn't do that for me.
As for EX ammo and explosives, depends on the form, the more stable, I'd lean to no, the less stable, put it to the die, you might be lucky. That's my version of simple, though I try to be consistent with, once I've given a ruling.
I suppose at the end of the day, this thread has been about the type of game I want to run, which I would describe is on the hard side of Hollywood realism. Perhaps even more akin to a simulation than even that.
-
There is a tiny difference between electric detonator and electronic detonators at least in mining use.
Electric detonator blow as soon as the appropriate current and impulse is applied while electronic detonators incorporate more electronic components allowing for longer delays and tighter control of final ignition as well as better protecting against premature detonation from potential leakage, shorts, and electromagnetic sensitivity.
Would this stand up to a lightning bolt spell? probably not, but might be able to resist a S&S round though I would not want to be the mook field testing this. :P
-
C12 is an unknown; if it is anything like C4 it is, again, mostly RDX (80-90% if my memory serves me right). Modern grenades use Comp B, which is as previously mentioned a 60/40 (roughly) mix of RDX and TNT.
RDX was discovered around 1900, and saw widespread use in WWII and all the way up until modern times, as it forms the basis of most military explosives (Composition B, Semtex, C-4).
Nitroglycerin is highly unstable in it's raw, liquid state, and is considered a primary explosive, unlike TNT and RDX.
The part about electrical detonators in SR5 Run & Gun changes everything from a setting perspective; this is technology we don't have today.
In essence, then, it'll have to be up to the GM, as always, because we don't know enough about C12 and electrical detonators (that do not contain any explosives) to make a real world comparison.
I will say that I think it is highly doubtful that the militaries of the world would have switched wholesale; as for the OP's question, you'd have to decide for yourself if this kind of intimate explosives knowledge is something the player character possesses, after you decide if the grenade he's targeting is using a primary explosive or electrical fuse.
I think my biggest issue with C12 being electrically sensitive is that there is no real world equivalent whatsoever for this; the only explosives that can be triggered by electricity are primary class explosives, and they are all unstable in other ways as well. Chalk this one up to "science!", I guess.
In any case, now that my point has finally gotten across, my work here is done :)
Definitely agreed.
To challenge that the military would have gone to latest technology, I doubt that. If there's anything I've learned from speaking to a number of people serving, from all over the world, is that the military inevitably goes towards the most reliable technology or systems that they can. It doesn't so much matter if it's tanks or vehicles, personal armour, rifles, explosives. What can do the job in the most circumstances with the least amount of difficult. I would suspect that they would have stayed with, on a whole, basic technology and systems, including gyroscopic safeties, chemical fuses and the like. Simple reason, you can't hack a classic. While they have a great deal of technology, many different forms of training give the soldier the potential, ability, to act and continue acting when that technology fails. While electronic warfare plays a large part in Shadowrun warfare, battles, much the same as magic does. The basic art of soldiery would be very much the same in mind.
That hasn't changed much in a while and unless something even more severe than magic, dragons, returning to the world happens, that's not going to change.
One of the earliest and most consistent themes of cyberpunk is technology running amok. For one, you don't have "a" military, there exists dozens of corporations capable of fielding their own militaries, each of which have their own political structure and methodologies. More than that, it's the corporations that produce the weapons on today's battlefields, not DARPA led committees or research grants. So, the question is not "what requirements does the UCAS have of modern weapons" but "what does Ares sell to the world's armies?" Individual countries take a back seat. It's the corporations that fight wars and run nations, and it's their R&D departments and factories churning out the weapons.
That being said, feel free to ignore any tropes or themes that rub you the wrong way. It's your game after all.
In theory, I can't accept electrically detonated explosives. That is pure current leads to the chain reaction. In my mind, it's too unsafe, especially since lightning bolts can be thrown about in this world. To a degree, I can accept electrically fired rounds, it's because it's just an electrically induced spark to a propellant charge. Things like Metal Storm, anything with stacked projectiles uses this. I see a source of ignition and a charge. Straight current just doesn't do that for me.
I totally understand that. Having no particular care one way or another, I don't mind electrically detonated explosives. It's a magic trick of science, to be sure, but we've seen plenty of those in our lifetime. It would be nice if someone had bothered to explain how that's supposed to work. In most sci-fi novels, they at least do the courtesy of showing what goes into the new magical gadgetry. Again, cyberpunk.
-
Two things high, raw current produces electrically, high heat, high pressure.
Take your pick for pick for setting off the goods...
-
Did you fire this ammunition with a silencer on the weapon? Was the weapon a pistol? Was your target ballistic gelatin (or a human) wearing impact-resistant armour? Were you indoors? Did you employ anything to protect your hearing? Was he moving? Had the Decker turned the lights off of the building? Had the mage already checked for Astral security?
No. No. No. No. Yes. No. Uuuh? Say what?
You do realize that 12.7mm ammunition is .50 cal, right?
Also, the thingamajig ammunition (Raufoss MultiPurpose) you are referring to does not operate on the same shaped-charge principle as the explosive ammo in Shadowrun does.
As far as I can tell, yes it does. The EX rounds described in Arsenal are precisely like MultiPurpose rounds (or HEIAP, if you will), in that the round has an incendiary charge that ignites when it hits the target, which in turn triggers the detonation of the HE charge, essentially blasting a path for the penetrator core of the round. If you have insight into how SR EX rounds differ from this methodology, I'd like to hear it.
I think it'd be good for both of us to stop discussing this though. My opinion is that with the return of magic and the technological advancements in the SR universe combined with the fact that it's supposed to be an RPG, I find little value in discussing the finer points of weaponry and firearms in the real world. Sure, the laws of thermodynamics etc. apply. But actual weapon experience isn't going to do much good. Unless it is explicitly requested. Like it was. Because then it will turn into an argument between rule of cool versus real gun experience, usually with people with gun experience also arguing between themselves.
Like I said, I'm providing my opinion based on the information available to me. You can choose to handwave whatever you want for your table, of course, but in discussions where a comparison to the real world is asked for you might want to moderate your dislike for said comparisons.
Anyway, on a more serious note... I'd like the question about electric ammunition and electrically sensitive explosives answered? Or what about casting lightning bolt or such at the explosive? Are there spells that could blow up grenades, other than pulling the pin with magic fingers?
Unknown; modern day explosives that are electrically sensitive (primary explosives) are sensitive to other environmental factors (such as heat and shock) as well, so it's certainly plausible. Since we have no modern day equivalent of C12 (which is apparently stable with regards to heat and shock but not electricity), no comparison can be made.
I would say it depends on two things; a) can stick-n-shock ammo penetrate a steel case (in the case of grenades) and still deliver it's charge, and b) just how electrically sensitive is the explosive. I'd certainly think it plausible that electricity attacks (stick-n-shock, elemental spells, a shock glove...) could set of electrically sensitive explosives if a fuse can be made that triggers the explosive with electricity alone.
How? I have no fraggin clue...
-
Well, then the rules for EX are different when compared to what they have in the SR5 main rulebook:
Explosive rounds: These slugs carry a shaped-charge explosive, designed to explode and fragment on impact.
-
Yep, that sounds about right.
-
One of the earliest and most consistent themes of cyberpunk is technology running amok. For one, you don't have "a" military, there exists dozens of corporations capable of fielding their own militaries, each of which have their own political structure and methodologies. More than that, it's the corporations that produce the weapons on today's battlefields, not DARPA led committees or research grants. So, the question is not "what requirements does the UCAS have of modern weapons" but "what does Ares sell to the world's armies?" Individual countries take a back seat. It's the corporations that fight wars and run nations, and it's their R&D departments and factories churning out the weapons.
That being said, feel free to ignore any tropes or themes that rub you the wrong way. It's your game after all.
......
I totally understand that. Having no particular care one way or another, I don't mind electrically detonated explosives. It's a magic trick of science, to be sure, but we've seen plenty of those in our lifetime. It would be nice if someone had bothered to explain how that's supposed to work. In most sci-fi novels, they at least do the courtesy of showing what goes into the new magical gadgetry. Again, cyberpunk.
I think you may have misread my post.
My point is the basic values of soldiery, of being a soldier and serving as a soldier means, wouldn't have changed much and hasn't changed much. While the doctrine changes and can change dramatically, where and who they fight does as well, that element of looking out for the guy next to you, the guy next to him. The esprit de'corps for the unit you follow, chains of command, why a sergeant major or higher can advise a lieutenant, but if he tries with a captain, it's bad form. Why that master chief petty officer, you listen to under pain of a great many punishments as he's basically allowed to speak with the voice of captain of naval vessel.
While a guy in the trenches mightn't understand CQB and modern language, he does understand how he reports to, why he reports to them and what a proper salute is. This is what I am getting at, it's the very training and profession of being a soldier. At least in Shadowrun's time, you might have Mage's as a support unit, if not an Electronic Warfare specialist at the squad/platoon level. That on a whole they're still soldiers, and they still have the same values that make soldiers different, unique even.
It's not that as well, it's consistency on my end. If you're going to create something very outlandish, at least in my mind, like this, you can't hand wave it away. You need an explanation. If the few of us here can utterly pick things apart, it could be done better.
-
IF you got Cyberware then it's entirely rational you got electrically detonated explosives that don't otherwise go boom.
So yeah, I agree with you Lion that the basics of soldiering would remain relatively constant as you lay out above.
But tech?
Not so much imho.
-
I would quote, but I'm on my phone and that's a PITA, so I wont.
I am replying back to Lion however.
I'm going to say that I didn't misread your post. You have substituted out the meat of your argument for something I'm not arguing against that also doesn't support your original premise.
Espirit De corps doesn't change. We aren't talking about that. What we are talking about is the military decision makers.
I'm even going to say that the UCAS military mostly functions the way it did (on a much more groomed and pruned down scale). That says nothing of the myriad corporate and new national entities that control militaries. The NAN, PCC, Tir Tairngire, and dear god Aztlan/Aztechnology, as well as ALL of the other Big Ten and the Corporate Council itself have standing armies and their own independent executive branches that make all the decisions for them.
And all of them are looking for the edge against their neighbors and potential enemies near and far. The corporate wars and the great Ghost Dance are all in recent memory. Magic came back and trounced conventional warfare. Getting that edge means taking risks on new technology, because nobody has the luxury of time like we do today.
More than that, using electrical fuses is an incremental change, similar to other incremental changes that all arsenals of all militaries go through.
That being said, not all grenades necessarily use C12 or electronic fuses. This depends entirely on the manufacturer and the demands of those disparate, clustered militaries receiving the goods.
-
Also, the thingamajig ammunition (Raufoss MultiPurpose) you are referring to does not operate on the same shaped-charge principle as the explosive ammo in Shadowrun does.
Only if you take the bit about EX ammo being shaped charges as canon. I consider it an inadvertently misused technical term, since EX rounds clearly do not have the properties of a shaped charge (AP -1 is hardly an anti-armor weapon).
-
Also, the thingamajig ammunition (Raufoss MultiPurpose) you are referring to does not operate on the same shaped-charge principle as the explosive ammo in Shadowrun does.
Only if you take the bit about EX ammo being shaped charges as canon. I consider it an inadvertently misused technical term, since EX rounds clearly do not have the properties of a shaped charge (AP -1 is hardly an anti-armor weapon).
You have to consider the +2 DV as well as the -1 AP. Taken in total, they do more damage than APDS and affect penetration by a difference of 3... one point behind APDS. I would consider that to be pretty anti-armor.
-
You have to consider the +2 DV as well as the -1 AP.
+1 DV, and that's only good if you get through the armor. Against hardened armor, -3 AP is worth far more than +1 damage.
-
But tech?
Not so much imho.
It still has to follow physics and right now it's pure handwavium. I've never been a fan of handwavium at the best of times. Difference of opinion, agree to disagree?
Nice post, issue explained below.
Which was a subject I never intended to get into in any way, shape or form. I never intended to take the discussion down those lines and frankly wonder how you arrived at a point where I did.
Looking over my posts, I was speaking very much in the general. I wasn't trying to get into subject area at all, partly because it doesn't work that like. The rest of it is honest confusion, I don't understand how you could read that from any of my post.
I suppose a part of it as well as the above, is the fact I have followed as best I can, a number of military projects and development cycles. The ATF fly-offs where in the 1980s, that's for the current generation of fighters and strike craft, the F-22 and F-35. The 1980's. The project timelines for things like ships, submarines, that's easily in the decades all up, from initial concept through to construction, deployment.
Rifles follow something of a similar pattern, though I would suspect, this is without hard numbers in front of me, a period of years is actually quite common, prior to general adoption. If there are exceptions, it's in war time, in which very specific requirements are sought. Prime example being the production of the Sten gun, the Mark 3* Lee Enfield, the like. The creation of thee Firefly pattern take with its 17 pound gun, Allied 88 equivalent for those not so versed in history, was driven by the need to kill the latest Panzers variants, as well as Tiger variants.
Perhaps martinchaen can come back and explain a little about what he saw, maybe even prove me wrong here. Things like this are generally only started when a major body has seen a gap in its capability or is approached by another with a noted gap in capability. That as Russia continued to advance the MiG designs, America and its allies needed fighters that were able to outperform and out fight the MiG. This was then presented to a number of organisations, who provided a number of potential designs to the specified characteristics.
Sure, Ares can design, develop, prototype, produce, market and sell a new rifle. If no other body has a need for such a rifle, then what do they gain by doing so? I challenge that doing so is bad business strategy and would actually loose their Triple A status pretty quickly. If you're looking to improve an existing product or have been engaged by another group to improve that product, that's fine with me. To do it for no reason other than to fill a need you intend to try and create? That doesn't make sense to me.
I also have to challenge that the reappearance of magic is as big a game changer as I believe you think. However, this thread has long since left it's original topic and perhaps it might be best to close it.
-
I'm not a historian, nor was I really involved in military R&D efforts except perhaps for being a member of one of the first units issued rifles chambered for .338 ammunition, an effort that had already begun when I joined up.
We were issued modified Sako TRG-42 rifles in mid-2001, at a point when Sako didn't manufacture barrels for this caliber. Another supplier was used for this purpose, and we used a variety of barrel lengths and twist rates before settling on a 28" barrel with a 1-10 twist. This process took less than 6 months all told, but at the end of these trials it was becoming increasingly clear that NATO would begin deploying troops in Afghanistan.
If memory serves me right, I fired the majority of my training rounds during that first period of time (upwards of 10k rounds) and shortly after.
That being said, this was a highly specialized weapon system designed for minimal implementation (my detachment had less than 50 rifles), and as such I don't belive it compares to something like the implementation of the M16 rifle or the M67 grenade; one would need to look at those kinds of projects to gain comparable data, to my mind.
-
I'm not a historian, nor was I really involved in military R&D efforts except perhaps for being a member of one of the first units issued rifles chambered for .338 ammunition, an effort that had already begun when I joined up.
We were issued modified Sako TRG-42 rifles in mid-2001, at a point when Sako didn't manufacture barrels for this caliber. Another supplier was used for this purpose, and we used a variety of barrel lengths and twist rates before settling on a 28" barrel with a 1-10 twist. This process took less than 6 months all told, but at the end of these trials it was becoming increasingly clear that NATO would begin deploying troops in Afghanistan.
If memory serves me right, I fired the majority of my training rounds during that first period of time (upwards of 10k rounds) and shortly after.
That being said, this was a highly specialized weapon system designed for minimal implementation (my detachment had less than 50 rifles), and as such I don't belive it compares to something like the implementation of the M16 rifle or the M67 grenade; one would need to look at those kinds of projects to gain comparable data, to my mind.
Thanks for this, much as I suspected to be honest.
I do owe you a few, how do you like your thanks, does a net beer or two on me sound good?
-
You have to consider the +2 DV as well as the -1 AP.
+1 DV, and that's only good if you get through the armor. Against hardened armor, -3 AP is worth far more than +1 damage.
EX Explosive, which is not regular explosive, does +2 DV and -1 AP. The armor calculation is DV VS Armor, so any + to DV also pushes the damage into physical. In this case, the difference is a net 3 for EX Explosive versus a net 4 for APDS. The explosive ultimately does more damage, however, because on an average, -4 ap will prevent 1.333 damage soak. Thus, the damage difference is 7 to 4.
For EX Explosive versus APDS, you are trading off having one extra point of armor pent ration for an average extra real damage box.
-
Sure, Ares can design, develop, prototype, produce, market and sell a new rifle. If no other body has a need for such a rifle, then what do they gain by doing so? I challenge that doing so is bad business strategy and would actually loose their Triple A status pretty quickly. If you're looking to improve an existing product or have been engaged by another group to improve that product, that's fine with me. To do it for no reason other than to fill a need you intend to try and create? That doesn't make sense to me.
I also have to challenge that the reappearance of magic is as big a game changer as I believe you think. However, this thread has long since left it's original topic and perhaps it might be best to close it.
It's simple, really. Corporations are nations in their own right. They own territory, the fight over resources, they go to war. When Ares makes an assault rifle, they are filling their own needs and they sell them because now everyone else needs something that competes. That's their corporate strategy - make the best weapons and make the world reliant on them to get their weapons.
And good rifles are more important in SR than they are today. When the war is in the shadows, it's the grunts and ground troops that need the best gear to fight off the Shadowrunners and black ops teams.
Anyway, if you don't want to continue, that's fine. We can end it there.
-
Sure, Ares can design, develop, prototype, produce, market and sell a new rifle. If no other body has a need for such a rifle, then what do they gain by doing so? I challenge that doing so is bad business strategy and would actually loose their Triple A status pretty quickly. If you're looking to improve an existing product or have been engaged by another group to improve that product, that's fine with me. To do it for no reason other than to fill a need you intend to try and create? That doesn't make sense to me.
I also have to challenge that the reappearance of magic is as big a game changer as I believe you think. However, this thread has long since left it's original topic and perhaps it might be best to close it.
It's simple, really. Corporations are nations in their own right. They own territory, the fight over resources, they go to war. When Ares makes an assault rifle, they are filling their own needs and they sell them because now everyone else needs something that competes. That's their corporate strategy - make the best weapons and make the world reliant on them to get their weapons.
And good rifles are more important in SR than they are today. When the war is in the shadows, it's the grunts and ground troops that need the best gear to fight off the Shadowrunners and black ops teams.
Anyway, if you don't want to continue, that's fine. We can end it there.
Which still doesn't make sense if you're actually familiar with how nations and corporations actually work on these types of projects.
The issue is that when you do embark on something like this, it's a twenty, thirty, forty year contract. You're going to be stuck providing parts, ammunition, maybe even manufacturing and training for that entire length of time. The USS Missouri served in Vietnam and was still firing shells made in WW2. Orders in this area in hundreds of thousands of units, millions maybe. Ammunition easily stretches into the billions of rounds. Ten billion, if we're talking infantry rounds.
if it is as you suggest, which is 'let's build a new rifle from the ground up' how many military grade weapons would be out there on the market? Black market? Runners wouldn't need to worry about F rated gear as it''s that easy for them to acquire, the basic Kalashnikov equivalent would be sold at a loss as there are so many higher quality products just as easily available. It means the market for illegal goods is flooded with a constant level of military grade hardware and that stuff is serious. It also in my mind implies and fundamentally requires a constant advancement in body armour. That if everyone can so easily acquire an assault rifle, basic level security guards, greeters at doors are going to need military grade protection.
In everything I've read about Shadowrun, I do not believe that is the case. That projects still have a lifetime of between three and ten years, for infantry grade items, ten to twenty years or so for armoured vehicles and naval warships. Perhaps even large scale civilian vessels as well. There's a period of testing and refining I think you're missing here. As well a large number of trials and prototypes that do get produced. It wouldn't surprise me that the prototype units for the M4 put hundreds of thousand rounds down range, just trying to make the weapon fail.
Also, if Ares sell everything they make, doesn't that lead to a self-defeating path for them? That their opponents can have easy access to a massive number of units, work out how to sabotage them, or design a better item based almost entirely off Ares own work? If this is such corporate and greed given as you seemingly suggest, then you're looking at a world that is either full of patent cases or a place where there are very loose, if only guideline level patent laws.
Here's the thing, let's look at the basic M4 and the HK 416. HK dramatically improved the basic M4 design with the inclusion of their design work. In clear the dirty gases from the chamber, the weapon in theory needs to be clean less, an issue I've heard about the M4. That it needs to be very regularly cleaned to maintain it in full functionality. In addition to that, the design also allows water, sad, other things that would foul the M4. not cause any issues or cause far less issues in the HK 416.
I would suggest, if things worked as you seem to suggest, any company or body that makes the M4 would steal the design specifications from HK and would produce it under their own. In the modern world, doing such a thing would be an outrage to most of the world and lead to such a suite of patent suits that it would take hundreds of years worth of combined court time to resolve. In the Shadowrun world, I'd suggest the Corporate Court would order the destruction of the corporation that did this and would assign assets out to the Top Ten and other corporations as they see fit. From memory, the Court has dissolved a corporation before, they would here.
I would suggest you do some reading on how street gangs progress up the chain to full blown mafia, Yakuza like bodies. There's a concept of behaviour I think you're missing here. That behaviour is very much informal but it's also highly valued. It's also in my mind, how they can use Shadowrunners, making acts of men look like acts of god. They're not allowed to attack each other directly, which is exactly what stealing another company's newest product is. It's also why I say that the Top Ten need each other. They need the competition to drive product research and development. While profit is certainly a goal, the single minded drive for profit and dominance I believe is mistaken and certainly at this end of the RPG (designers, writers, editors etc) the people need to sit down in a Politics 101/Intro to Political Theory class and learn their isms, in this case the difference between fascism and capitalism. Why they're not that different on some level as well.
As a take away note, I'm happy to continue this. However if you're planning on continuing, take this as a warning. I will get exceedingly academic here. I will use plenty of isms, ists and I will research prime examples to provide my evidence. If you're not willing to have that level discussion, let bygones be bygones and all that. Am I being clear?
-
No, no and hell no. You aren't making any sense, and your counterpoints don't line up with my arguments. I am officially giving up trying to help you with this.
Maybe just read Snow Crash and Virtual Light. They do a pretty good job of showing what the cyberpunk genre is about.
-
No, no and hell no. You aren't making any sense, and your counterpoints don't line up with my arguments. I am officially giving up trying to help you with this.
Maybe just read Snow Crash and Virtual Light. They do a pretty good job of showing what the cyberpunk genre is about.
We obviously have severely different standards on how the world works.
-
no hard feelings or upsettedness here
we're just discussing our different takes on military tech in a game with elves and magic fer crissakes ;-)
but yeah, to me the single distinguishing feature of any cyberpunk genre is technology run amok.
so to me, if you got crazy out of this world cyberware like tailored pheromones, nutty tech like nanite forges et al and it the book clearly notes electrically detonated explosives that are highly stable you would be a bit blindered to not consider grenades that are electrically detonated and stable.
but in the end it doesn't matter, it's your table and your game play it how you like it mate ;-)
cheers and have fun
-
No, no and hell no. You aren't making any sense, and your counterpoints don't line up with my arguments. I am officially giving up trying to help you with this.
Maybe just read Snow Crash and Virtual Light. They do a pretty good job of showing what the cyberpunk genre is about.
We obviously have severely different standards on how the world works.
Here, let me fix that for you: We obviously have severely different standards on how science fiction and fantasy worlds work.
Keep your self righteousness to yourself. I'm out.
-
EX Explosive, which is not regular explosive, does +2 DV and -1 AP. The armor calculation is DV VS Armor, so any + to DV also pushes the damage into physical. In this case, the difference is a net 3 for EX Explosive versus a net 4 for APDS. The explosive ultimately does more damage, however, because on an average, -4 ap will prevent 1.333 damage soak. Thus, the damage difference is 7 to 4.
For EX Explosive versus APDS, you are trading off having one extra point of armor pent ration for an average extra real damage box.
Again, I am talking about hardened armor. Body armor is not exactly what shaped charged and sabots are made for...
-
EX Explosive, which is not regular explosive, does +2 DV and -1 AP. The armor calculation is DV VS Armor, so any + to DV also pushes the damage into physical. In this case, the difference is a net 3 for EX Explosive versus a net 4 for APDS. The explosive ultimately does more damage, however, because on an average, -4 ap will prevent 1.333 damage soak. Thus, the damage difference is 7 to 4.
For EX Explosive versus APDS, you are trading off having one extra point of armor pent ration for an average extra real damage box.
Again, I am talking about hardened armor. Body armor is not exactly what shaped charged and sabots are made for...
Okay, I'm doing the math.
Because of the automatic successes from hardened armor, which is modified by AP, EX Explosive is slightly worse than APDS. Specifically, EX does an average of .5 less real boxes of damage and it needs one more success or DV to deal damage through hardened than APDS.
Against all other targets, EX Explosive is the superior choice.
The core rulebook says under Explosive ammo that "these slugs carry shaped-charge explosives, designed to explode and fragment on impact." That means they are applying the shaped charge in a way other than to penetrate armor. Also, sabots are just sleeves that allow you to fire a round smaller than the bore diamater. Armor Piercing Discarding Sabots are something in the nature of hard metal darts made to fire out your gun.
And also, we are talking about pistol and rifle ammunition, not dedicated anti-vehicle weapons, which is likely where you are applying those terms from. Antitank rockets apply shaped charges in an entirely different way.