CT Only: Sponge Plating

[Supplement Four]

I saw this in a Hammer's Slammers story, and I thought it pretty cool--something that could be used in Traveller.

Sponge Plate is man-portable armor. Two 5 cm metal-ceramic armor plating sheets sandwich a core of white porcelain sponge. They can be connected on the ends for longer or taller protection. They can be locked into double, triple, or more thickness to stop heavier weapons.

Three of them thick will protect infantry from a hover-tank powergun, which, in the Traveller universe would translate to a pretty hefty vehicle mounted main weapon plasma gun.

Interesting, though, a three-thickness is not enough for rockets, which tells me those have greater penetration.

In the story, Sponge Plate is used to line the walls of a house as men prepare for an attack on a village.

One man can carry a section of Sponge Plate, though he'll be able to do naught else.

 

[sabredog]

Yes, the "buzzbombs" in the Slammer stories are deadly even to the blower tanks. Whenever somebody pops up to shoot one at a tank or car he attracts every gun in visual distance. Fortunately they are short range.

The applique sponge armor sounds good, but I also wondered: if they line the house with it, and the enemy pounds the house into rubble, do the armor panels stay up? Or, if a heavy MBT tri-barrel unload on a wall, wouldn't it just blow the panel inwards to lethal effect?

They do seem like they'd be really good for trenches and other improvised shooting positions. Even a tank pit would be a good spot to add a few panels to make armored revetments.

 

[willtron3030]

something like ablative armor

I think the weapons/defense escalation would probably see a return to heavy kinetic rounds. if you can't incinerate it, knock on it, hard.

 

[sabredog]

Nearly everyone the Slammers fight uses kinetic weaponry. And it all seems to work almost or at least as well as power guns. But the energy weapons have the edge in range, especially as they are essentially line of sight weapons - if you see it you hit it and kill it.

That's emphasized with the calliopes (and the main guns of the tanks even used to do it) that wipe out any incoming barrages of artillery. As soon as something peeks over the horizon, blammo. The limitation is cost; the exotic armor and weapons the Slammers use are prohibitively expensive. Jeez, you lose one blower and the cost is ruinous.

I've personally liked the concepts of some of the more space opera-y kinetic weapons in the stories. My favorite are the squeeze-bore rifles used by the indigenous forces in the novel Forlorn Hope. They are described as being brutal to fire, and only some huge guy (and there are a couple in the story) could hope to use one on burst fire, but they do just as much damage and as accurately as any powergun. To work they use an exotic mineral barrel to compress the round to a ridiculous size when it is fired to give it that extra velocity.

A fun concept but way over the top. But then, Drake admitted that he had no idea how powerguns even work and just wrote up a bunch of technobabble to satisfy his publisher, so I imagine the same is the case with the diamond and sapphire barrels on the kinetic guns, too. Laser AT guns are also pretty spectacular in the book, and one of them will wipe out a lot more than the target by way of its stray heat. I mean, really stray heat - like, fire one down a wide street and fry everyone and set fire to everything one either side while zapping the target six blocks away.

 

[sabredog]

Yes....here we are:

" Cone-bore (squeeze bore) weapons firing osmium penetrators through barrels made from synthetic diamond."

LOL..you gotta love that stuff!

 

[wellis]

Yes....here we are:

" Cone-bore (squeeze bore) weapons firing osmium penetrators through barrels made from synthetic diamond."

LOL..you gotta love that stuff!

IIRC the penetrators are sliced down as they're forced through the synthetic diamond barrels?

 

[sabredog]

No, they are squeezed down the bore.

It's an old concept dating back to WWII. The Germans made some small, air-droppable AT-guns for their paratroops to use. To get the needed velocity out of them they had a bore that started at full size, and then decreased slightly towards the muzzle. This increased the pressure behind the round - which had a softer metal skin to allow for the squeezing, increased the pressure behind the round and boosted its velocity.

The later 7.5cm Pak 41 did the same thing with either a barrel that tapered down, or they also had a muzzle adapter for regular barrels. The round was a slightly smaller diameter tungsten core AP penetrator that had a full-caliber swaged soft metal tail to take the taper. It is one reason why that gun was such a dangerous one for Allied tanks. The British also experimented with the principle using captured German guns. Some rounds used compressible rings around the tail of the round, too.

The concept eventually became the sabot round, which is more efficient and easier on gun wear.



So no, the diamond barrel in the Slammers stories is supposedly hard enough to compress the osmium penetrator round down to like 4/5th's or less of its original diameter and the pressure boosts it to ridiculously high velocities and corresponding kick. The rifles could tear through light vehicle armor (anything but an MBT) without trouble, too.

In one story it is mentioned that even these guns were not common for all the infantry to have since they were so specialized and expensive (the grown diamond barrels came form only one strategically important system I think), but they were the effective counter to the powergun-equipped troops since everyone, regardless of weapons, had the same personal armor. And only the heavy blower tanks could carry enough iridium alloy armor to stop nearly anything a man could carry. Except a buzzbomb. Buzzbomb AT-rockets could kill anything on the battlefield.

I think it is mentioned that the Friedlander troops carried these guns, too, along with laser armed tanks, and accordingly were very dangerous opponents relative to the Slammers.

 

[Supplement Four]

But then, Drake admitted that he had no idea how powerguns even work and just wrote up a bunch of technobabble to satisfy his publisher, so I imagine the same is the case with the diamond and sapphire barrels on the kinetic guns, too.

He wrote a few pages describing the powerguns, and he did a good job of bluffing me. Though, I'm not a science guy. I bought what he said, though.

According to Wikipedia...

Powerguns

In the Hammer universe, a powergun is a weapon which projects high energy copper plasma toward its target. This plasma is created by inducing an electrical field in a precisely aligned group of copper atoms; the atoms' alignment causes a resonance which greatly amplifies the field energy and ionizes the atoms.

The resulting plasma is directed by a firing chamber and barrel made of refractory metal, such as iridium; the chamber and barrel are cooled between shots by injected gas (typically nitrogen).

The copper atoms are stored as individual charges, with the atoms held in the correct alignment by a plastic matrix which is mostly consumed by the firing.

All the parts of a powergun require extremely precise machining and advanced materials, which makes powerguns very expensive; only the most successful mercenary units (or technologically advanced planets) can afford large numbers of powerguns.

Powerguns are easily identified by the extremely bright cyan color of their plasma bolts; the electrical field also generates a broadband radio frequency discharge which can be picked up by the appropriate equipment.

A powergun's recoil is far lower than a projectile weapon of equivalent size or firepower, as the copper atoms have low rest mass; the primary limit for powergun rate of fire is its ability to dissipate heat. Many smaller rapid fire powerguns use a multibarrel configuration, either a rotary gatling or a multi chamber mitrailleuse (the latter called a "calliope" in Slammer's military slang.)

Powerguns are line of sight weapons. As a general rule, if you can see it, you can hit it. The upper limit of their range is not known. However, in one story a politician is killed with a shot to the head from a 1 cm pistol in the hands of a master marksman at a range of more than a mile.

In another, part of a plot revolves around disabling the powergun equivalent of a heavy flak gun battery capable of hitting a spaceship in orbit. However, the plasma projected has one failing: the energy in the plasma will expend itself on the first object it hits, whether that is a leaf or an enemy soldier. Precision in aiming is key when using a powergun.


NOTE: The mechanism by which powerguns produce destructive plasma is similar to the working of a Tesla coil, and the destructive power of copper plasma is said (in the Slammers universe) to have resulted in the deaths of thousands in the 1902 eruption of Mount Pelee. (In reality, this was the result of a pyroclastic surge.)

 

[sabredog]

When I was a kid I thought that sounded plausible, too, but time and education increased my skepticism. I still love the stories, though - after all the light saber is still the coolest weapon ever and I can't even begin to list all the ways it violates practically every law of physics there is.

 

[Supplement Four]

When I was a kid I thought that sounded plausible, too, but time and education increased my skepticism.

Well...sure! It's science fiction! These weapons don't exist!

That's kinda like sayin' I don't buy Traveller's jump drive because time and education have increased my skepticism.

So many science fiction authors don't even bother. The stuff just works.

I'd be skeptical about how Honor Harrington's ship use gravitic sails, but I buy it and dig it when I read those stories--at least Weber put some Handwave thought into it.

I still love the stories, though - after all the light saber is still the coolest weapon ever and I can't even begin to list all the ways it violates practically every law of physics there is.

Right on, man!

 

[Condottiere]

When you get too scientific, like adding midichlorians, it breaks the immersion.

 

[Supplement Four]

When you get too scientific, like adding midichlorians, it breaks the immersion.

I see your point. But, the immersion was broken with midichlorians because Lucas changed the nature of the Force. Before, it was a mystical energy force that surrounds us and penetrates us and binds the galaxy together. It was magic. It was faith.

Lucas robbed the mystique from the Force by degrading it into something mundane, simple sub-atomic particles that can be measured with a blood sample.

So, I would argue that Drake's explanation of the powerguns actually supports immersion for me, where as Lucas' midichlorians destroyed the given nature of the Force.

 

[sabredog]

Technobabble is a respected standard in science fiction. Star Trek is famous for it. But yeah, the Force wasn't supposed to be about little animacules in the blood...it was "the force that binds the universe together and has a dark and light side"...or whatever Obi Wan said in the first movie.

Mystical duct tape.

Asimov's rule on technobabble was that so long as whatever you were describing in the story was familiar enough to the reader it didn't need a lot of technobabble. Sometimes a laser if just a laser I guess. Personally, I like some of it but it depends on the story I think.

I expect more of it in Space Opera or Techothriller (Slammerverse, BOLO and Berserker series') type science fiction because complicated high-tech supper stuff is usually involved and it is part of those genres, but it bugs me when it isn't needed to add anything to the story. Sometimes just saying "he flew his Fantamic Flitterwing to Smead's Planet that afternoon and arrived in time for a late dinner." is enough.

 

[wellis]

I've read somewhere that Drake's depictions of anti-tank weapons in the Hammerverse were influenced by what tanks were like during the Vietnam War, such as buzz bombs being so incredibly deadly unless knocked out by PD from the tanks (due to most tanks just relying on RHA steel and not having any effective way of protecting against shaped charge weapons, to the point the Germans & French decided that speed was better than armor, hence the Leopard 1 having so little armor it could be penned by some WW2 tanks pretty easily).

Considering the advances in armor tech for tanks, such as composite armor and ERA and such weakening the threat of many direct-fire man-portable anti-tank weapons, such as RPGs, if Hammer Slammers had been written in a later time period, do you think the depiction of certain weapons would be different?

 

[aramis]

I've read somewhere that Drake's depictions of anti-tank weapons in the Hammerverse were influenced by what tanks were like during the Vietnam War, such as buzz bombs being so incredibly deadly unless knocked out by PD from the tanks (due to most tanks just relying on RHA steel and not having any effective way of protecting against shaped charge weapons, to the point the Germans & French decided that speed was better than armor, hence the Leopard 1 having so little armor it could be penned by some WW2 tanks pretty easily).

Considering the advances in armor tech for tanks, such as composite armor and ERA and such weakening the threat of many direct-fire man-portable anti-tank weapons, such as RPGs, if Hammer Slammers had been written in a later time period, do you think the depiction of certain weapons would be different?

The powergun is a distinctive element - and it shapes the tactics as well. And the nature of the armor. I suspect some differences would have entered, but the Powergun is the quintessential "Turn left from reality here and follow that road as far as it goes" element... So, while the rest would have, it probably wouldn't change too much. Now, if it were post 2000, I would expect much more automation than Drake puts in. And missiles would be killed much quicker based upon the public knowledge of the efficiencies of automated point defense systems in current use. A 1cm rotary powergun automated turret would make the Phalanx look a little anemic...

 

[sabredog]

Considering the advances in armor tech for tanks, such as composite armor and ERA and such weakening the threat of many direct-fire man-portable anti-tank weapons, such as RPGs, if Hammer Slammers had been written in a later time period, do you think the depiction of certain weapons would be different?

Actually, the armor for the Blowers is layered compisites of iridium plate, ceramics, and steel. And they have a version of ERA used as active defense against infantry that also takes out buzzbombs if they are fired closely enough. The tanks have an augmented reality display for the commander and crew in the turret with automated air defense (that as Aramis says, make Phalanx look weak) and some degree of the same for close-in weapons, but the response time limitations are what make the latter pretty iffy.

Drake seems to prefer the "a scared man can swing a gun faster than a computer can" paradigm. I agree with that within the structure and focus of his stories being the experience of the characters as opposed to mainly being on the technology. The tech is there, of course, but the focus remains with the experiences of the men using it and being sometimes controlled by it. So in the respect, the weapons shouldn't too good and all-capable or there wouldn't be much reason for the men in the story that crew it.

Even the best point defense can also be defeated, as Drake and real life illustrates, through speed, surprise, and saturation. That's why the Phalanx pours out effectively a wall of steel to try to overcome those three things, but mainly it works best countering saturation and speed. Most point defense systems are not very good dealing with surprise because they A) can't be looking everywhere, B) a complicated system can't cycle fast enough from stand by to active, C) surprise often means "distance advantage" meaning the threat isn't seen until it is too close to counter with the PDS.

So again...maybe a scared man can swing a gun faster? Which is one reason why ships today still have machineguns all over them for "defense"?


Also, the buzzbomb thing is understandable from even today's advances and the evolution of the ATGM.

The ATGMs evolved in response to the increasing firepower and protection of the tank when the Main Battle Tank doctrine came about. They gave infantry something with longer reach and, more importantly, portability that could take out a tank. RPG's and LAW rockets gave even the individual a means to break a tank - if the man using it was desperate enough to get reallllly close.

And the biggest risk to the user was that big cloud of smoke with the flaming rocket coming out of it to give him away. Crews train to overwatch for that for mutual vehicle protection. The trained reaction was to warn the group and pour fire into the cloud to distract (or kill) the man guiding the missile to its target.

If a scared man could swing a gun fast enough he might save himself or a team mate.

That trend moved to adding gun-missile systems to tanks, with more or less success, but really, the man-portable missile was for a long time a major threat to any tank. Even with today's advanced armor and active anti-missile systems, it seem like the ATGM has entered a renaissance with new multi-stage warheads to defeat active and passive reactive armor and even propulsion systems designed to spoof man and machine alike. No more big clouds of smoke to give away the firer.

Ironically, given that the gun-missile idea largely abandoned in the 90's if now back with a vengeance. Now that the thing works so it can augment the reach and kill capability of a gun the Russians are even bringing back the positional AT-gun. The new ones are the same guns used in the T-72 and 80 firing the same ammo and gun-launched ATGM.

As today, too, missile cost a lot less than a tank does. Anyone can afford them while few can afford modern MBT's (Drake has the same thing going on in his stories). And a trade-off of a couple of guys launching ATGM's at a multi-million dollar(Credit...) tank with four or five highly skilled troops inside....oh yes, that's a heck of a bargain. And you don't have to punch through the armor to remove a tank from battle: a soft kill through breaking a track is a time-honored means to knock one out. Also, once immobile, a tank is effectively blind as far as infantry are concerned since now the infantryman is faster and more maneuverable than the MBT. He can nip around behind the beast, where the armor is thinnest (or the deck for the thinnest yet) and kill it there.

It is significant that the only M1A2's lost in the middle East to date have been as a result of: friendly tank fire, really big road bombs, and man-portable antitank rockets/rpgs/missiles. And in all instances the crew either survived or there were amazingly few casualties. Also, in most of the missile/rocket type kills they were mostly soft kills that had broken tracks or damaged the engine through deck penetrations - thus allowing the enemy to then further damage the tank or just leave it as a ridiculously expensive, dead chunk of technology.

So no...Drake is still valid in the buzzbomb arena, the means just change but things stay the same. Which is also the universality he portrays in his stories.

 

[sabredog]

I've read somewhere that Drake's depictions of anti-tank weapons in the Hammerverse were influenced by what tanks were like during the Vietnam War, such as buzz bombs being so incredibly deadly unless knocked out by PD from the tanks (due to most tanks just relying on RHA steel and not having any effective way of protecting against shaped charge weapons, to the point the Germans & French decided that speed was better than armor, hence the Leopard 1 having so little armor it could be penned by some WW2 tanks pretty easily).

That's true in all respects, but you can go deeper. Drake had personal experience, as did a lot of 70's scifi authors who wrote combat stories: Gene Wolfe (The HORARS Of War is actually based on an incident he was involved in in Vietnam), Drake, Haldeman, Heinlein, ....

But Drake still tried to project future materials and technology into the stories even if he didn't delve so much into the details accurately or at all. His stories were about the experience, not the materials.

As for the tanks like the Leopard, tanks are always limited by a three part equation that Drake broke with the Blowers. He even pointed this out a few times, that the development of small effective fusion power plants broke all the tank design rules and were the only thing that made Blowers possible.

Tank design has to balance protection/firepower/mobility. There is some overlap based on doctrine - like the Leopard (even the 2 and variants have lighter armor than an M1A2 or Challenger). The Germans treated through tactical doctrine speed and agility (Mobility) as augmenting armor (Protection), thereby allowing them to increase firepower without having to increase the weight and size of the tank (Mobilty). You can see all the overlaps.

The M1 Abrams was designed with increased armor (protection) and speed (mobility) at the initial cost to firepower (they had to stay with a smaller, barely adequate gun). That's because US doctrine was to use the tanks in defensive positions and be able to run to the next prepared tank pit ASAP, but not actually maneuver out in the open. The Soviets did the opposite, emphasizing firepower and mobility over protection from just armor. They rely on a small profile and agility to help compensate and the big gun to compensate for superior armor in NATO tanks.

Eventually, with only 3 points to and unavoidable triangle of design limits you reach a point where until the Next Big Thing happens in any one of them you settle on the best design to fit your tactics and just keep polishing it. Chobam was the Next Big Thin in protection, but its weight and implementation requirements (slab sided box construction) affected the other two - mainly mobility. So jet turbines come into use, but they drink fuel and reduce the movement part of mobility, and weigh more. And missiles get better so now you need a bigger gun to hit farther away to get out of their reach when they get shot from gun-missile tanks. And that weighs more, too.

Drake broke all that with the fusion plant. As he said, it allowed enough power to be generated to make, when combined with the hover fans, mobility and protection limits moot since no matter how much heavy armor you piled on you just only had to make a bigger power plant to compensate. The only limit in his universe is cost. The Blowers are gigantic, move like a ballerina, and have unlimited firepower. But cost the GDP of a country for one tank.

 

[sabredog]

I think I killed it. Sorry.

 

[Enoki]

I'd think that the concept of super dense armor works better. While today technology won't allow making a mass of large plates, I'd think that down the road the technology would be there.

What you do is take a powdered metal, the finer and more uniform the particles the better, almost any powdered metal, and you press it into the plate or shape of the piece you want where it stays together like packed sand would.

From there, you put it in a hot isostatic press and run it up to close to white hot temperatures while putting say, 250,000 psi on it for a few hours. The piece's atoms are scrunched (a scientific technical term... o: ) much closer together making the resulting plate far denser and tougher than the naturally occurring material is.

The OP armor of two 5 cm plates with foamed ceramic between them could be made today. That technology already exists. I doubt it would do well against a kinetic energy penetrator, although it might have some value versus HESH or HEAT rounds.

 

[sabredog]

Does anyone know how the Bonded Superdense is supposed to work as part of a structure? I know how it has that charge running through it to pull the collapsed atomic structure even tighter, but what about when it has the power cut off?

Does it turn back into regular superdense? Does it have to have a continuous current of how much? Can it only be used on vehicles and ships because it needs a lot of power?

It's a small thing, but this is the place for debating small things into big ones.