OFFICIAL - GZG: Vacuum and zero/low gravity combat…?

Hi all,

Just want to try to get a little bit of discussion started…..

With the great reaction to the first two MOONGRUNT figure packs - and
six new packs almost ready for release - I'd like to gather ideas and

> On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 01:19:54PM +0000, Jon Tuffley wrote:

Some ideas:

- it will be easier to take troops out of action, and therefore harder
to kill them, compared with ground combat. If you get a small breach in your
suit, you may slap a patch on it and stay down, rather than poking your head
up to be shot at again.

- low gravity may well mean lower tactical movement speeds for
infantry (you don't want to bounce up out of cover), but higher for vehicles.

- in built environments, you really don't want to blow holes in the
walls, which will be no thicker than the company could be persuaded to pay
for. Personal armour may well be thicker than this! So you
  might have shotgun- or dart-type weapons for use when possible, and
a locked armoury with the big guns for when you're going to lose the
  station/ship if you don't fight.

R

No hover vehicles.  ;-)

Folks should read the "Stark's War" series, which covers combat on the Moon in
really good detail.

Mk

> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Jon Tuffley <jon@gzg.com> wrote:

> Hi all,

> On 1 Feb 2016, at 13:27, Roger Bell_West <roger@firedrake.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 01:19:54PM +0000, Jon Tuffley wrote:

Nice start, Roger!
> - it will be easier to take troops out of action, and therefore harder

I see it as a case of extremes, with little in the middle - damage to
suits will divide into "patchable" or "non-patchable" - if the latter,
you're pretty much dead regardless of what physical injury the hit causes to
the wearer.

> - low gravity may well mean lower tactical movement speeds for

Good point re infantry speeds if they want to stay low…. but at the
other extreme they could cover ground very fast in a series of loping hops, at
the cost of increased exposure and vulnerability….. and a
relatively low-powered thruster pack could move troops very fast in
"flight" mode…..

> - in built environments, you really don't want to blow holes in the

> On 1 Feb 2016, at 13:29, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:

> No hover vehicles. ;-)

Hahaha! But relatively easy "flight" with low powered rockets or gas
thrusters, a la 2001 Moonbus……

> Folks should read the "Stark's War" series, which covers combat on the

Agreed - that, and the Ian Douglas Lunar Marine books….

I'm looking here for thoughts on how to convert that kind of fiction to the
tabletop.

Jon (GZG)

> Mk

For Zero-G a control save each turn modified by how fast a figure moved,
firing weapons, number free hands Etc. etc...

In general, low velocity weapons that depend on the payload to do damage
instead of velocity. Manageable with one hand, hooked to a in helmet
HUD...

Increased ranges for Hand grenades and other low velocity weapons, with a
corresponding increase area of effects for fragmentation effects, a decrease
in chemical weapons area.

Those are my 1st thoughts....

Blades will also be popular as weapons, as projectiles of any kind in habitats
will be seen skeptically.

Trained troops for zero g will have a massive advantage over those not trained
for it. Everything is harder in zero g, moving like the Apollo astronauts did
isn't that tactical in many ways, and new troops can blunder into craters,
stick the landing wrong, of if things go real bad, they can achieve escape
velocity.

EMP generating weapons will also be popular, take out a suit ' s electronic
capabilities, and that trooper is out of the fight.

Nukes in this environment are very deadly..as there won't be an ounce of
protection against hard rads outside of a hab...God help you if there is a
solar flare during a firefight.

Firing a weapon in zero g is interesting too, as recoil may send you flying in
the other direction. Using objects or center mass to brace as you shoot is
important.
> On Feb 1, 2016 5:04 PM, "Evyn MacDude" <evyn.macdude@gmail.com> wrote:

> For Zero-G a control save each turn modified by how fast a figure

I'd expect more rocket rounds instead of bullets. The gun deploys a small fin
stabilized projectile with its one propellant, which then rockets down range.
Have to be a bit careful that the propellant doesn't jet back into the
shooter, but thats solvable.

And, depending on tech level, laser weapons might be very nice. No kick back,
and you only have to heat up the opponents suit enough that it punctures. Of
course, the suits will have a fair amount of
thermal/radiation shield themselves, but a directed energy weapon could
overwhelm them.

Maybe something like the old Rift glitterboy suit where before firing the suit
deploys anchors. Either spikes drilled into the regolith, or a brace to divert
the force directly into the ground.

Definitely need rules for jumps a-la battletech jump jets.  :)

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Jason Weiser <jason.weiser@gmail.com> wrote:

> Blades will also be popular as weapons, as projectiles of any kind in

> On 1 Feb 2016, at 22:03, Evyn MacDude <evyn.macdude@gmail.com> wrote:

> For Zero-G a control save each turn modified by how fast a figure

For the MOONGRUNT figure releases so far, I've described the standard infantry
weapons as a laser rifle (handy for putting neat little holes
in the other guy's suit) and low-velocity grenade launcher combo……

All good contributions/ideas so far…. keep 'em coming!  ;-)

Jon (GZG)

> On 1 Feb 2016, at 22:43, Matthew Seidl <seidl@wraith.com> wrote:

> I'd expect more rocket rounds instead of bullets. The gun deploys a
wrote:
> Blades will also be popular as weapons, as projectiles of any kind in

Why fins in a vacuum?

Probably better to have a rifled launcher

Michael Brown Sheridan, WY

mwsaber6@msn.com

Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 15:43:55 -0700
Subject: Re: OFFICIAL - GZG: Vacuum and zero/low gravity combat…?
From: seidl@wraith.com
To: gzg@firedrake.org

I'd expect more rocket rounds instead of bullets. The gun deploys a small fin
stabilized projectile with its one propellant, which then rockets down range.
Have to be a bit careful that the propellant doesn't jet back into the
shooter, but thats solvable.

And, depending on tech level, laser weapons might be very nice. No kick back,
and you only have to heat up the opponents suit enough that it punctures. Of
course, the suits will have a fair amount of
thermal/radiation shield themselves, but a directed energy weapon could
overwhelm them.

Maybe something like the old Rift glitterboy suit where before firing the suit
deploys anchors. Either spikes drilled into the regolith, or a brace to divert
the force directly into the ground.

Definitely need rules for jumps a-la battletech jump jets.  :)

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Jason Weiser <jason.weiser@gmail.com> wrote:
Blades will also be popular as weapons, as projectiles of any kind in habitats
will be seen skeptically. Trained troops for zero g will have a massive
advantage over those not trained for it. Everything is harder in zero g,
moving like the Apollo astronauts did isn't that tactical in many ways, and
new troops can blunder into craters, stick the landing wrong, of if things go
real bad, they can achieve escape velocity. EMP generating weapons will also
be popular, take out a suit ' s electronic capabilities, and that trooper is
out of the fight. Nukes in this environment are very deadly..as there won't be
an ounce of protection against hard rads outside of a hab...God help you if
there is a solar flare during a firefight. Firing a weapon in zero g is
interesting too, as recoil may send you flying in the other direction. Using
objects or center mass to brace as you shoot is important.

> On Feb 1, 2016 5:04 PM, "Evyn MacDude" <evyn.macdude@gmail.com> wrote:

For Zero-G a control save each turn modified by how fast a figure moved,
firing weapons, number free hands Etc. etc... In general, low velocity weapons
that depend on the payload to do damage instead of velocity. Manageable with
one hand, hooked to a in helmet
HUD...
Increased ranges for Hand grenades and other low velocity weapons, with a
corresponding increase area of effects for fragmentation effects, a decrease
in chemical weapons area.

Those are my 1st thoughts....

Fighting on the Moon or Mars...

I'm going to assume low-g vs. zero-g.  Jerry and I talked about doing a
zero-g FMA/FT hybrid for ECC a number of years ago.  Basically a game
where you'd move your troops using vector movement. May still do it someday.
Anywho...

Seems like a great locale for autonomous hunter killer vehicles of different
sorts. In the early days it'd be rumbling remote control crate with enough
structure for power, cameras, slow mobility, and a modified weapon system of
low caliber (but using AP for kicks), with a supply of O2 to allow the ammo to
work correctly. Range will be dictated by available power and religious
maintenance. Later on they'd take on a more futuristic
look but still be an up-armored buggy but operating fully autonomously.
Why won't you see regular tanks?  Cuz it'd cost a metric butt-ton to get
them to Mars.... However perhaps some mystery unobtanium is below the surface
of Mars...and local manufacturing becomes possible because they find and
aquifer and start cracking H2O at a regular rate...

As far as infantry goes I'd go along the lines of what we saw in the Martian
as a starting point. Light outfit with ceramics. Firing low
caliber / high velocity perpetrators (FN5.7 type stuff).  Later comes
the more advanced armor and weaponry.

Using SG2 or FMAS rules I'd do random movement distances for troops who
were poorly trained in low-g combat.  Standard movement for folks
trained in it.

D.

> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Matthew Seidl <seidl@wraith.com> wrote:

> I'd expect more rocket rounds instead of bullets. The gun deploys a
wrote:
> For Zero-G a control save each turn modified by how fast a figure

Good point.:) But why rifling without the atmosphere? Projectiles might
tumble, but without an atmosphere to deflect them I'd think they'd still fly
straight. Maybe have less penetration power, but without a lot of armor that
won't matter.

> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Michael Brown <mwsaber6@msn.com> wrote:

> Why fins in a vacuum?

The "heavy weapons" guys in the MOONGRUNT figures are going to use
recoilless shoulder-fired tube launchers - a gas charge (vented rearward
to avoid any recoil problem) launches the projectile from the tube at low
velocity, then a rocket sustainer in the round kicks in. Rounds may be "smart"
guided ones with steering jets, or simple dumb rockets for area fire. Warheads
optimised for either armour penetration (if vehicles or defence works are the
target) or maximum fragmentation effect against suited troops.

I do lean towards lasers for the infantry rifles and SAWs - for one
thing, no weighty ammo supply to worry about shipping up the well, just
easily-generated electrical power…..

Jon (GZG)

> On 1 Feb 2016, at 23:14, Matthew Seidl <seidl@wraith.com> wrote:

> Good point. :) But why rifling without the atmosphere? Projectiles
wrote:
> Why fins in a vacuum?
wrote:
> Blades will also be popular as weapons, as projectiles of any kind in

Back to the topic of Grenades, Consider reducing the area of effect if said
grenade lands in a area of deep regolith. Kinda like one landing in a
snowdrift....

> On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 05:36:03PM -0500, Jason Weiser wrote:

EMPs are generated when gamma rays hit _atmosphere_ and strip
electrons off atoms there; you need a magnetic field too. A nuke on the moon
or in orbit won't generate noticeable local EMP (though there
may still be some on earth - look up STARFISH PRIME and the Soviet
Project K Test 184).

> Nukes in this environment are very deadly..as there won't be an ounce

Similarly, you won't get any of the blast effect that comes from compression
and explosion of air. So you may actually survive being close enough to the
detonation to take a lethal dose of radiation.
Yay? :-)

(If the game goes down this path, don't forget the possibility of "zombie
troops", people who've taken terminal radiation doses but are still going to
be functional for a few days.)

Very interesting, Roger, and quite different from what many people
(including me!) thought that they knew!  ;-)

I don't think we need worry too much at the moment about the effects of
nukes and similar as far as current game proposals are concerned - I'm
really looking at very low-level conflicts between small units of
Marines sent up the well to defend mining installations and the
like….. I think that tossing nukes about is probably outside the
scope of that at the moment, though I guess rules for them (and their
after-effects) might be needed in certain scenarios….

Jon (GZG)

> On 2 Feb 2016, at 10:24, Roger Bell_West <roger@firedrake.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 05:36:03PM -0500, Jason Weiser wrote:

In 0 or micro gravity you can get away with slow speed guided weapons (or ones
that only accelerate when they get close to the target). Explosives have to
depend on shrapnel rather than blast effect. Projectile weapons and artillery
are line of site (no indirect fire unless a weapon is powered and guided) Even
a bow and arrow will have extended range without atmosphere or gravity Clouds
of Chaff will hang around for awhile and don't forget about using high energy
particle beams.

Andy

> Subject: Re: OFFICIAL - GZG: Vacuum and zero/low gravity combat…?

> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 08:15:20AM -0500, andrew apter wrote:

"So now, armored against vacuum, our bowmen made that famous raid
called the Battle of the Meteors. Cloth-yard shafts pierced many a
Wersgor spacesuit without fire-flash or magnetic force-pulse to give
away a man's position."

> Clouds of Chaff will hang around for awhile

Neutral particle beams, because charged ones bloom too much. This is exactly
the opposite of what you want in atmosphere (where the charge helps hold the
beam together against atmospheric interference), another reason to have
dedicated space troops with special equipment.

R

<de-cloak>How about an aerosol mist as an anti-laser defense?Grenade
fragments will be effective for a greater range, but without the blast wave,
one actually has to be hit by the fragments, no effect otherwise. J

      From: Roger Bell_West <roger@firedrake.org>
 To: gzg@firedrake.org
 Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 7:37 AM
 Subject: Re: OFFICIAL - GZG: Vacuum and zero/low gravity combat…?

> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 08:15:20AM -0500, andrew apter wrote:

"So now, armored against vacuum, our bowmen made that famous raid
called the Battle of the Meteors. Cloth-yard shafts pierced many a
Wersgor spacesuit without fire-flash or magnetic force-pulse to give
away a man's position."

> Clouds of Chaff will hang around for awhile

Neutral particle beams, because charged ones bloom too much. This is exactly
the opposite of what you want in atmosphere (where the charge helps hold the
beam together against atmospheric interference), another reason to have
dedicated space troops with special equipment.

R

There would still be a blast effect, but no shock wave. The blast effect would
be from the expanding gases of the grenade. Although not a concussive force,
if you're close enough to a grenade while in microgravity and you survive the
fragments (because you have a heavily armoured suit, for instance) you'd still
be pushed away from the blast point by the gases.

This effect could be interesting against anti-gravity vehicles on the
Moon.
Even a non-penetrating hit from an explosive AP round could move it off
course. If you aimed the round low enough, there may even be a chance of
flipping the vehicle. This could be an argument for wide tracked vehicles on
the moon.

The fragments of a hand grenade would have a greater range, but remember that
they are expanding in a spherical cloud. While there is no atmosphere to slow
the fragments down, as the cloud expands the number of fragments per surface
area drops by the square of the distance. Modern US M67 hand grenades have a
lethal radius of 5 m and a wound radius of 15 m. Even so, they can send
fragments out to over 200 m. The chance that a single fragment will strike you
drops off pretty quickly due to the size of the expanding sphere. Although the
concussion effect of a hand grenade is by no means pleasant, it's the
fragments that do the damage. I would imagine that in a vacuum hand grenades
would have the same effective radius as they do on Earth, with the predominant
decider for lethality being the number of fragments per area as the
fragmentation cloud expands.

I would also assume that larger artillery rounds would have less of an effect
in a vacuum as they do more of their damage through concussive shock waves.
Mines designed to flip vehicles (rather than penetrate them) might be a
plausible option.

On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:35 AM, J L Hilal via Gzg <gzg@firedrake.org> wrote:

> <de-cloak>

> On 2 Feb 2016, at 18:50, Allan Goodall <awgoodall@gmail.com> wrote:

> There would still be a blast effect, but no shock wave. The blast
Modern US M67 hand grenades have a lethal radius of 5 m and a wound radius of
15 m. Even so, they can send fragments out to over 200 m. The chance that a
single fragment will strike you drops off pretty quickly due to the size of
the expanding sphere. Although the concussion effect of a hand grenade is by
no means pleasant, it's the fragments that do the damage. I would imagine that
in a vacuum hand grenades would have the same effective radius as they do on
Earth, with the predominant decider for lethality being the number of
fragments per area as the fragmentation cloud expands.

So specialised "vacuum grenades" - hand or launched - would be optimised
for maximum frag effect, possibly with a smaller explosive charge packed
around with more, but smaller, fragments - designed to cause multiple
suit punctures (harder to patch several small holes in time…)
rather than necessarily to inflict major shrapnel wounds on the
person…..

> I would also assume that larger artillery rounds would have less of an

I could see a lot of use being made of mines that detect the passage of a mass
over them, then fire a penetrating charge straight up into the
belly plate - quickly followed by a lot of up-armouring of vehicle
undersides in the field….

Jon (GZG)

> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:35 AM, J L Hilal via Gzg <gzg@firedrake.org>
wrote:
> <de-cloak>

> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 07:47:08PM +0000, Jon Tuffley wrote:

Or, ideally, hitting the target dead-on and firing an AP jet right
through his suit. Give it a bit of smarts and some cold-gas jets for
manoeuvre, and it becomes something each squaddie can carry a few of. Lob it
out over the enemy (x6 throwing distance on the Moon) and they'll remember why
they ought to have put a roof on their bunker.

R

Great thread, all kinds of folks are peaking out from the woodwork

Michael Brown Sheridan, WY

mwsaber6@msn.com

> Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:49:52 +0000

> On 2 Feb 2016, at 19:49, Roger Bell_West <roger@firedrake.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 07:47:08PM +0000, Jon Tuffley wrote:

Nasty…..  :-)

> On 2 Feb 2016, at 19:59, Michael Brown <mwsaber6@msn.com> wrote:

> Great thread, all kinds of folks are peaking out from the woodwork

Yep, getting some good responses - we should do more of this!  ;-)

Jon (GZG)

> Michael Brown

> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 02:47 PM, Jon Tuffley wrote:

So specialised "vacuum grenades" - hand or launched - would be optimised

for maximum frag effect, possibly with a smaller explosive charge packed

around with more, but smaller, fragments - designed to cause multiple
suit punctures (harder to patch several small holes in time…)
rather than necessarily to inflict major shrapnel wounds on the
person…..

Hmmm, would something like this become too difficult to handle? Assuming

a vacuum and low gravity/no gravity, wouldn't the fragments travel for a

very, very long time essentially sending some portion of the frag back at the
firing squad? Admittedly the density would be low by that point, but a risk
none the less. Plus having to remember dispersal patterns for

X density of atmo by Y g gravity to achieve Z+1 meter throw seems like a

lot. I guess you could add a lot of intelligence to the grenade - "I
haven't been thrown far enough to detonate in these conditions so I will

sit here".ÂÂÂ

Would this result in squads carrying shields?

> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Jon Tuffley <jon@gzg.com> wrote:

> So specialised "vacuum grenades" - hand or launched - would be
​Grenades are already optimized for maximum fragmentation effect.
The explosive is what tears the metal case apart into fragments, as well as
determining how far away the fragments go. You might be able to reduce the
explosive in order to limit the range, but you can't reduce it a lot due to
the need to tear apart the case.

And you might *really* want to go in the other direction and give the troops
*bigger* grenades. One of the limiting factors in hand grenades is the
distance you can throw it. On the moon, with it's lower gravity and lack of
atmosphere, you can throw a bigger object a greater distance. Grenade
engagement ranges go up (though you'd have to increase fuse length; assume
some sort of smart chip to detonate the grenade at the optimal time).

On the other hand, if you're going to make your hand grenades way more
powerful, you will want to split them into offensive and defensive grenades
(defensive grenades are for closer range work).

The next thing to decide is the protection factor on the space suits. You want
to perforate your enemy's suits. At the same time, you want your own suits to
be protective.

Lunar suits already had to have some protection against tears and wear during
the Apollo program. It turns out that moon dust is really abrasive. Working in
moon dust is like working on sand paper. The later Apollo missions, with their
longer EVA times, saw a great deal of wear on their boots, etc. They also ran
into problems with joints seizing up. If you want your lunar soldiers to be
able to trudge across the moon for more than a few days before replacing their
suits, they are going to need more than just fabric and kevlar. Then it's
possible that you can't just use normal fragmentation grenades, but instead
need something with specific
anti-armour capability. Maybe you want a grenade that has tiny bomblets
that explode out, "stick" to a suit, and then detonate in such a way as to
rupture the outer layer.

On the other hand, you probably don't have to spell this out for anyone in a
game setting. Assume there is some armour capability built into the suits and
some puncture capability, define the range and blast area and you're good to
go.

While they are shaped like fins,it would be better for your mind and reality
that they be considered radiators to soak off the heat from theships power
plant/weapons.
Bye for now,John L.<IO

On Monday, February 1, 2016 3:04 PM, Michael Brown
> <mwsaber6@msn.com> wrote:

 #yiv7251990902 #yiv7251990902 --.yiv7251990902hmmessage
P{margin:0px;padding:0px;}#yiv7251990902
body.yiv7251990902hmmessage{font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri;}#yiv7251
990902 Why fins in a vacuum?

Probably better to have a rifled launcher
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Michael Brown Sheridan, WY mwsaber6@msn.com
ÂÂÂ

ÂÂÂ

ÂÂÂ
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 15:43:55 -0700
Subject: Re: OFFICIAL - GZG: Vacuum and zero/low gravity combat…?
From: seidl@wraith.com
To: gzg@firedrake.org

I'd expect more rocket rounds instead of bullets. The gun deploys a
small fin stabilized projectile with its one propellant, which then rockets
down range. Have to be a bit careful that the propellant doesn't jet
back into the shooter, but thats solvable.

And, depending on tech level, laser weapons might be very nice. No kick
back, and you only have to heat up the opponents suit enough that it
punctures. Of course, the suits will have a fair amount of
thermal/radiation shield themselves, but a directed energy weapon could
overwhelm them.

Maybe something like the old Rift glitterboy suit where before firing the suit
deploys anchors. Either spikes drilled into the regolith, or a brace to
divert the force directly into the ground.

Definitely need rules for jumps a-la battletech jump jets.  :)

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Jason Weiser <jason.weiser@gmail.com> wrote:

Blades will also be popular as weapons, as projectiles of any kind in habitats
will be seen skeptically.Trained troops for zero g will have a massive
advantage over those not trained for it. Everything is harder in zero g,
moving like the Apollo astronauts did isn't that tactical in many ways, and
new troops can blunder into craters, stick the landing wrong, of if
things go real bad, they can achieve escape velocity. EMP generating weapons
will also be popular, take out a suit ' s electronic capabilities, and
that trooper is out of the fight.Nukes in this environment are very deadly..as
there won't be an ounce of protection against hard rads outside of a hab...God
help you if there is a solar flare during a firefight.Firing a weapon in zero
g is interesting too, as recoil may send you flying in the other direction.
Using objects or center mass to brace as you shoot is important.
> On Feb 1, 2016 5:04 PM, "Evyn MacDude" <evyn.macdude@gmail.com> wrote:

For Zero-G a control save each turn modified by how fast a figure moved,
firing weapons, number free hands Etc. etc... In general, low velocity
weapons that depend on the payload to do damage instead of velocity.
Manageable with one hand, hooked to a in helmet
HUD...ÂÂÂ
Increased ranges for Hand grenades and other low velocity weapons, with a
corresponding increase area of effects for fragmentation effects, a decrease
in chemical weapons area.ÂÂÂ

Those are my 1st thoughts....

A shaped charge could help make the fragment more directional

Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 15:31:13 -0500
From: mxconnell@optonline.net
Subject: Re: OFFICIAL - GZG: Vacuum and zero/low gravity combat…?
To: gzg@firedrake.org
CC: gzg@firedrake.org

> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 02:47 PM, Jon Tuffley wrote:

So specialised "vacuum grenades" - hand or launched - would be optimised
for maximum frag effect, possibly with a smaller explosive charge packed
around with more, but smaller, fragments - designed to cause multiple
suit punctures (harder to patch several small holes in time…)
rather than necessarily to inflict major shrapnel wounds on the
person….. Hmmm, would something like this become too difficult to
handle? Assuming
a vacuum and low gravity/no gravity, wouldn't the fragments travel for a
very, very long time essentially sending some portion of the frag back at the
firing squad? Admittedly the density would be low by that point, but a risk
none the less. Plus having to remember dispersal patterns for
X density of atmo by Y g gravity to achieve Z+1 meter throw seems like a
lot. I guess you could add a lot of intelligence to the grenade - "I
haven't been thrown far enough to detonate in these conditions so I will sit
here". Would this result in squads carrying shields? Martin

That would work for something launched but not something thrown.On Feb
> 2, 2016 4:21 PM, andrew apter <aapter@hotmail.com> wrote:

A shaped charge could help make the fragment more directional

ÂÂÂ

Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 15:31:13 -0500

From: mxconnell@optonline.net

Subject: Re: OFFICIAL - GZG: Vacuum and zero/low gravity combat…?

To: gzg@firedrake.org

CC: gzg@firedrake.org

> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 02:47 PM, Jon Tuffley wrote:

So specialised "vacuum grenades" - hand or launched - would be optimised
for maximum frag effect, possibly with a smaller explosive charge packed
around with more, but smaller, fragments - designed to cause multiple
suit punctures (harder to patch several small holes in time…)
rather than necessarily to inflict major shrapnel wounds on the
person…..

Hmmm, would something like this become too difficult to handle? Assuming
a vacuum and low gravity/no gravity, wouldn't the fragments travel for a
very, very long time essentially sending some portion of the frag back at the
firing squad? Admittedly the density would be low by that point, but a risk
none the less. Plus having to remember dispersal patterns for
X density of atmo by Y g gravity to achieve Z+1 meter throw seems like a
lot. I guess you could add a lot of intelligence to the grenade - "I
haven't been thrown far enough to detonate in these conditions so I will sit
here".ÂÂÂ

Would this result in squads carrying shields?

I’m going to concentrate on the idea of combat on the Moon rather
than free fall in these comments.

> On 3 Feb 2016, at 07:31, martin connell <mxconnell@optonline.net>
wrote:
> Hmmm, would something like this become too difficult to handle?
Assuming a vacuum and low gravity/no gravity, wouldn't the fragments
travel for a very, very long time essentially sending some portion of the frag
back at the firing squad?

Grenades are potentially dangerous to the throwers already, and it is common
for the thrower to take cover after the throw. The radius within which
shrapnel would be dangerous might be greater in lower gravity and no
atmosphere, but so would throwing range. Given the difficulty of throwing
accurately over longer distances, some sort of
“shootable” grenade might be a good idea. I think Jon
posted something about
imagining his moon-troopers’ personal weapon being a combined
laser-rifle and grenade launcher. Given that any effective laser-rifle
would have to have a range-finding function in order to focus the beam
optimally, a “smart grenade” designed to explode over
the intended target, in a manner similar to the airburst rounds fired by the
experimental XM25 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM25_CDTE), would seem
feasible.

Random thought: should a laser shoulder-arm be called a “rifle”,
since it would not have a rifled barrel, or indeed a barrel at all? Carbine
might be better. There’s lots of interesting stuff about personal
laser weapons on the Atomic Rockets web site
(http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/sidearmenergy.php),
including a discussion of why pulsed lasers would not make nice neat holes in
anyone unfortunate enough to be hit by one, and the intriguing idea of using
the optical system of the laser as a “reflex”
telescopic sight and range-finder.

Since the maximum power a laser could “shoot” without
melting its own internal parts would probably be determined by its aperture
(rather like a telescope), we could use the aperture in, say, millimetres as
the
equivalent of calibre in firearms. “Battle-rifles” might be 30-40mm,
while concealed-carry weapons might only be 20mm.

Everyone anywhere around laser weapons would have to wear
eye-protection, whether a space-suit visor, goggles, Adam Jensen shades
or whatever. Laser “ricochets” off reflective surfaces
could easily blind anyone looking in the wrong direction.

A factor not generally addressed in SF use of firearms is noise and
muzzle-flash. Obviously this would not be a factor where there is no
atmosphere, but firing guns inside a cramped pressurised habitat would
seriously damage people’s hearing. Muzzle-flash would be a fire-risk,
although fire in space would be so dangerous that I imagine every effort
would be put into non-flammable clothes, furnishings, padding etc.
Shotguns would be a particular problem for both noise and flash. Suppressed
weapons firing the sort of frangible rounds issued to
air-marshals might be the way to go, though armour or even “hard”
spacesuits might be a challenge.

> On 2 Feb 2016, at 21:24, Roger Bell_West <roger@firedrake.org> wrote:

This is true, but a nuclear detonation is not the only way to generate
an EMP. Non-nuclear EMP weapons have already been deployed, and while
they might be less powerful than the nuclear sort, there might be some
attraction in knocking out your enemy’s electronics without frying
those of your own troops. Of course both sides would take steps to harden
their electronics.

> On Tuesday 02 Feb 2016 08:15:20 andrew apter wrote:
Explosives
> have to depend on shrapnel rather than blast effect.

Chaff (and any form of dust) will probably fall faster on the Moon than on
Earth. In an atmosphere, light particles are kept up by collisions with air
molecules. In a vacuum, they just fall straight down. So even though the
gravity is lower, dust falls faster.

See:

http://www.wired.com/2013/03/the-acceleration-of-moon-dust/

Well, Sam, as embarrassed as I am to use the term, that's a paradigm shift for
me.

However, a slight change and

> without atmosphere or gravity Clouds of Chaff will

However, 'on the moon', it will either fall back, or escape [serious 'faster
than a speeding bullet' trucking involved]. No 'hanging.'

> On 7 Feb 2016, at 19:23, Douglas Evans <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:

> Well, Sam, as embarrassed as I am to use the term, that's a paradigm

To quote a Dilbert strip: "Was that the sound of a paradigm shifting
without a clutch?"  ;-)

> However, a slight change and

I'm assuming that in zero/micro gravity then a chaff cloud would
continue to expand at whatever velocity it was chucked out in the first place,
so its area of effect would continue to get wider but sparser until it was
spread thinly enough to be ineffective. In low (Lunar) gravity and vacuum it
would, as noted, simply fall to the ground.

Jon (GZG)

> However, 'on the moon', it will either fall back, or escape [serious

> On Sunday 07 Feb 2016 19:57:40 Jon Tuffley wrote:

Yes. In microgravity, density will drop with the cube of the radius (double
the radius, 8x the volume). The radius will expand at a constant velocity due
to the lack of anything to impede it.

However, the width of the cloud will also be increasing, so in terms of
blocking line of sight it's probably only dropping with the square of the
radius.

On another note, microgravity is a better term than zero gravity. Gravity
isn't actually zero anywhere near the Earth (even at 6,400km
altitude, it's still a quarter surface gravity). Microgravity/free fall
just means gravity is relatively constant and is the only force acting on you.
The crew of the ISS are all in a gravity field, falling towards the Earth,
they're just all falling at an almost (but not quite, hence the term micro)
identical acceleration as the station.

A chaff cloud released in orbit would still be influenced by gravity, and if
it was in orbit would gradually be pulled apart by gravity, since
gravitational effects on the 'lower' part will be stronger than on the 'higher
part'. This is unlikely to be important for wargaming purposes though, unless
the scenario calls for combat near a neutron star or black hole.