Interestingly, in 2300 AD, some of the assault arms were lasers, some were
what I'd call a needler or gauss gun, some older ones were conventional
caseless round, and a few were binary propellant. If they could get it right,
it does seem a snappy system, especially if (for an AR) you can load BP with
your mag or in the buttstock once every 10 mags if that's how it works out.
It'd be neat too to be able to siphon some BP off a tank to reload the squads
SAW.
How about this for BP main gun on an AFV: 1: Find chemical that requires a lot
of A (one inert element) and a little B (similar) to produce C (volatile) 2:
Mix A and B prior to injection into the breech block to assure even mix 3:
Have a purge cycle (perhaps an electrostatic charge, perhaps an air pressure
or some electromag particle repulsion field) to clear excess propellant 4: Go
to an autoloader (it's about time).
You could load A with a hose (like gas) and a cartridge of B slapped into the
side of the turret. the mixing chamber would have the same
blow-up panels modern ammo storage does. There is a siphon valve to
allow infantry to resupply BP weapons from the tanks supply, or in extremis
vice versa.
BP had the neat advantage of being able to meter the impulse per round to
allow better AP performance, better range, or better accuracy. If you fired on
FA or autoburst, the cyclic went up and the impulse per shot went down
assuming you were shooting in closer. Presumably your sights
autoadjust to reflect this - not that you might be using sights at close
range.
And Oerjan - stop bemoaning the weakness of the DS2 vehicle construction
system. The SG2 system (DS2 lite I'd call it) is far worse. I'd say "Get up
there and write us a good one, oh numbers wizard who knows too much about
modern AFVs...".:)
Seriously, has anyone taken a look at BTRCs GunsGunsGuns! (3G) - It's a
neat system for generic weapon system design. They also did a vehicle design
system that might be worth a look. If one could write a good conversion system
for it, you could just use it and do conversions. Seems easier than a system
from scratch, while allowing you many of the advantages a more rich and
complete system could provide. THOUGH Don't even mention *costing* such
vehicles....
Tom
-
I doubt that binary propellants will be as safe as you think. The reason
binary elements are split is because it is safer then the combination. To
claim that they are inert is to violates basic chemistry. You have to have a
propellent and an oxidizer.
One problem with BP small arms is that of catastrophic damage. It is possible
for a conventional round in a magazine to have its primary hit by shrapnel,
etc., but is very small and only the charge for one round will go off. But
with BP, you have to large storage tanks (compared to one conventiol round) to
be detonated. Although each BP will be "safer" then the propellent in one
conventional round, there will also be MUCH more of it.
One other problem with BP small arms is heat. The cookoff temprature (and
probably the boiling temprature as well) of the BP is going to have to be very
high, far more so then convenetional small arms propellents. Why? The metal
cases make very good heat sinks. This was a major problem with the
development of the HK G-11. HK eventually solved the problem by going
to a solid rocket propellant.
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Thomas Barclay of the Clan Barclay wrote:
> 4: Go to an autoloader (it's about time).
Tankers generally hate the idea of an autoloader because if it caughs up
during a battle you are screwed.
Another bigger consideration is that an autoloader can't drive the tank if the
driver gets injured, it can't help repair a track or help retension it, it
cannot sit out at an OP during a lull and chat on the sound powered telephone
with the Platoon LT about the 4 BTRs it sees 2 kliks away at the crossroads.
Loaders (the human kind) are critical in daily life of keeping the tank
healthy and performing duties other than pulling a sabot round from the ammo
bin and shoving it into the gun's hungry mouth.
The addition of an Auto loader would require a major amount of rethinking
general tanker doctrine and operations from day to day.
> Thomas Barclay of the Clan Barclay wrote:
> How about this for BP main gun on an AFV:
This is pretty much how today's experimental BP guns work, yes. Hard to
find good As and Bs, though - stuff that are highly energetic while not
being poisonous, inflammable or has some other unpleasant characteristics.
> 3: Have a purge cycle (perhaps an electrostatic charge, perhaps an
Why would BP guns need this more than solid-propellant ones using
caseless rounds?
> 4: Go to an autoloader (it's about time).
Don't load anything you don't want to load, though...
> BP had the neat advantage of being able to meter the impulse per
...if you can control the ignition and combustion process properly. So
far, that has been a rather big if :-(
> And Oerjan - stop bemoaning the weakness of the DS2 vehicle
The SGII system is the DSII system with the points values taken out...
> I'd say "Get up there and write us a good one, oh numbers wizard who
I began months ago, but certain other projects got in the way. Starfire 4th
edition is one; the other is... secret <g> However, since I want
the DSII vehicle design system to be officially re-done in the FB1
style, I'll take any chance to indoctrinate Jon (and the list) about
the need for it first ;-)
> Seriously, has anyone taken a look at BTRCs GunsGunsGuns! (3G)
Not even heard of the company. Web page?
> Tom wrote:
I did. My Simply Skirmish system and FUDGE combat system uses 3G3 for
personal and not-so-personal weapons. It's why my .50 cal roll D20 as
opposed to 9mm rolling d6.
I haven't looked at it for larger, vehicle-mounted weapons.
In a message dated 2/2/00 5:20:21 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> oerjan.ohlson@telia.com writes:
> >Seriously, has anyone taken a look at BTRCs GunsGunsGuns! (3G)
BTRC (Blacksburg Tactical Research Center--since the company started
while Greg Porter was going to Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia) started
out with Time Lords (an RPG), then went on to several related products, of
which GunsGunsGuns is one. The last range of products (other than Corps) was
the Macho Women with Guns series.
G3 is pretty good for personal weapon design, but Greg got the recoil rules
all wrong. How do I know? I was one of the playtesters for several of the
company's products and discussed this issue with Greg ad nauseum (I just
couldn't change his mind). Others in the early playtest group made similar
comments...
Oh well.
He's got a web page up--try http://www.digdat.com/~btrc/
Rob