CT Only: "The Miv" TL 9 B4-9v Machine Pistol

[Supplement Four]

"The Miv"

TL 9 B4-9v Styler-AUGHT Machine Pistol

This weapon is designed for both shipboard and Zero-G use. It fires a 7mm round but does not use typical powder. Instead, the bullet is propelled out of the weapon at variable speeds through near-ionized gas that is contained in the removable central barrel. The gas is stored in the circumference of the barrel, expanding into the bullet chamber when the cock is open. When the weapon is fired, the gas is super-heated to a near ionized state, propelling the round out of the weapon.

The user can adjust the weapon's velocity through a simple solid state selector on the barrel, allowing for slow velocity shot for shipboard use up to a high penetration hyper-velocity shot.

The barrels are discarded once the gas is depleted. Thus, the weapon uses two resources: Barrels and 7mm specialized ammunition that is fed through the handle via a clip. A standard clip, as shown, carries 12 rounds.

The point barrel is fitted with an integral silencer. The weapon is one third more quite than a normal weapon (which isn't that quiet). The gas propulsion affords the weapon to have one fifth the recoil of a standard 7mm sidearm.

The weapon can be used in Zero-G.

The B4-9v uses the standard SMG combat DMs, and the weapon fires 4 round bursts. Other versions of the weapon (not this one) include a short, folding shoulder stock with forward left-hand grip, and there are single shot versions available.

Several types of ammunition are available, from standard slug, to gas and tranq rounds, to shot rounds that feature micro-pellets, to penetrators or hollow points.

 

[whartung]

How many rounds per barrel?

What's the lock time from trigger pull to bullet firing?

I wonder if any analysis has been done on firing a pistol in zero-g, how much input it really adds to the system, and how difficult it is to control, how much the body simply absorbs as a shock absorber, making the contact particularly inelastic. If I see a guy in combat armor, floating, and I pour a magazine in to his side, can I get him to start spinning?

Even with adjustable velocity, the pistol is going to contribute some recoil.

The overall force is going to be similar (for a given velocity), even though the impulse may be longer (thus perhaps reducing the "felt" recoil). But 10 grams at 500 m/s is 10 grams at 500 m/s regardless of the duration of the impulse, especially in zero-g.

 

[Supplement Four]

How many rounds per barrel?

I was thinking that would be variable, depending on the velocity setting.

What's the lock time from trigger pull to bullet firing?

It's basically a SMG with some bells and whistles. I'd say a standard 4 round burst.



The weapon is inspired by this pic: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CgXc1UzWQAAlpmf.jpg

The overall force is going to be similar (for a given velocity), even though the impulse may be longer (thus perhaps reducing the "felt" recoil). But 10 grams at 500 m/s is 10 grams at 500 m/s regardless of the duration of the impulse, especially in zero-g.

I am strictly handwaving, and I wrote up the weapon on the fly. But, the Zero-G stuff came from thinking about accelerator weapons, which are magnetically propelled. I thought about dropping down a step in Tech from that.

 

[Fovean]

But, the Zero-G stuff came from thinking about accelerator weapons, which are magnetically propelled. I thought about dropping down a step in Tech from that.

I have always understood that accelerator weapons have a tiny powder charge used upon firing and chemical rockets that fire upon leaving the barrel.

My thought is that magnetic acceleration is only possible with tech levels high enough to achieve mass drivers and gauss weapons.

Having said that, I could be conflating different RPGs in my head.

 

[whartung]

I was thinking that would be variable, depending on the velocity setting.

Sure. So, if I only use "setting 2" (out of say, 3 settings: slow, normal, fast), how many rounds will the barrel fire? 10? 100? 1000?

It's basically a SMG with some bells and whistles. I'd say a standard 4 round burst.

Lock time is the time between trigger pull and the round firing.

Actually, lock time is the time from pulling the trigger and igniting the cartridge. Bullet dwell time is the time it take of the bullet to leave the barrel.

Flintlocks, for example, have a long ("long") lock time, and a long dwell time. It takes time for that big, heavy hammer to strike the flint, ignite the charge in the pan, and ignite the charge in the barrel. Watch any video of a flintlock firing and there is a distinct delay between pulling the trigger and the bullet heading down range.

Lowering the overall recoil impulse suggests a longer dwell time as the bullet accelerates down the barrel over a longer period of time.

I don't know if the impact is enough to add a negative DM to, say, a snapshot vs an aimed shot or require a higher base skill to negate such a DM. But it's possibly a factor (likely not, I don't think flintlocks suffer from such a DM).

I am strictly handwaving, and I wrote up the weapon on the fly. But, the Zero-G stuff came from thinking about accelerator weapons, which are magnetically propelled. I thought about dropping down a step in Tech from that.

Newton punishes magnetic acceleration just like every other acceleration. The only truly recoilless systems are rocket based.

(There's a thread on the gyro-jet pistol around here if you look it up.)

 

[aramis]

There are several ways to reduce felt recoil.

1) lower the acceleration force on the bullet
2) extend the bolt's travel time
3) reversal thrust Muzzle brakes (acceleration forward of the weapon during firing.
4) floating action (currently used, AFAIK, only on artillery and certain customized sniper rifles)
5) spring-loaded stock
6) preemptive forward thrust
7) Increased weapon mass.
8) Weapon rotation
9) multi-stage bolts

Perceived recoil has a few additionals
10) center of force on center of mass
11) gyrostabilization
12) reduced bolt-return force
13) Muzzle-brakes in general

Remember:
force is energy per time unit.
Felt Recoil is peak force
Perceived recoil is amount of effect on further shooting.

Whartung has already discussed lengthening burn time a bit.

Increased mass of the weapon reduces the acceleration force... but it has other drawbacks

Actions using a floating bolt use a spring to reduce the felt recoil by stretching the rearward force over more time, decelerating the bolt slower.
A multi-stage bolt has a bolt-carrier and a bolt with both moving backwards on firing, but the carrier having a spring connecting the bolt itself to the carrier and the butt connected to the carrier by a spring. Essentially faking a longer bolt return.
A floating action takes this one step further, springs connecting the weapon to the mounting/stock.

A spring-loaded stock is the same principle as a floating action, but putting the whole assembled weapon connected to the shoulder by a spring. Worthless for non-shoulder firing, but excellent for shoulder firing. Think of the flexibility of a free-standing pintel as being equivalent, too. It tends to increase perceived recoil, tho'.

Rearward force muzzle brakes are a way to pull the weapon forward before the full impulse is passed to the user - on a non-recoiling bolt & non-floating action, they have very limited felt recoil reduction.

Preemptive forward thrust is problematic, because it reduces felt recoil but increases perceived recoil on personal arms. Most weapons have a very slight one anyway - the hammer-fall. A buddy replaced the light hammer on his .357 revolver with a much heavier and longer one; it resulted in a notable drop from aim-point. (He shot high anyway, so no big deal... except that I could no longer point shoot with it.) As far as I know, except for firing from the open bolt, this isn't a major force factor. Still, on a revolver or other highly-off-center weapon, it can matter. On firing from the open bolt, the trigger pull releases the bolt to slam forward as it cycles, immediately firing, and reducing the rearward force ever so slightly, as the barrel floats forward in many cases.

And, of course, the revolver solution to felt recoil, at great expense in perceived recoil, by having off-center thrust and a shape that allows the weapon to roll through the hand. This absorbs a lot of the energy by creating upward force instead of rearward, and dissipating that force over the hand holding it as friction. But it also brings the muzzle well off line. Which is why rapid-shooters tend to grip tightly enough to prevent it.

The amount the barrel deflects (usually thought of as "Muzzle Climb") as part of recoil pulse is reducible by having the center of mass, center of force, and pivot location all in-line. Most rifles have center of force (barrel/bolt) above center of mass (usually a bit below the closed bolt, thanks to ammo and stock), and both above pivot point (usually, center of the butt plate or the pintle/tripod mount).

Muzzle breaks can easily reduce climb of the barrel, even when they don't add a forward impulse.

If the barrel is off-center, reducing the impact force of the bolt at both ends of its travel reduces its force transfer and hence off-center force. Not much use when the centers of force are also centers of mass and pivot...

Finally, gyro-stabilization has very low impact on felt recoil; only that of the increased mass. It does, however, help prevent barrel climb. I'm aware of two schemes. One spins up at firing cycle, and is allowed to spin down. It makes re-aiming hard, and force applied to aim shifting altered by a 90° off-axiscounterforce.. The other is a floating capsule, that, when the firing cycle is started, is gripped firm for the duration of the recoil pulse. It's much harder to re-aim until it releases the capsule. The designs I've seen for this all have a vertical axle, and a 1/3 sphere to 3/4 sphere capsule, with leads to the motor on the bottom, and the solenoids to grip the sphere being fore-and-aft, with a circular sleeve to hold the capsule. The capsule design allows sweeping fire, but not adjusting up or down, while the capsule is locked. While unlocked, as long as the range of capsule motion isn't exceeded, it's only got its mass.

All of these should work with S4's concept for propulsion; preemptive forward force is especially useful if the gas is already ionized and fed into the chamber. A magnetic drive through a small turbine creates a forward force during the firing cycle, AND spins the gyroscope in the capsule....

This would increase the benefit from burst fire, but at the cost of close in aiming...

 

[aramis]

I have always understood that accelerator weapons have a tiny powder charge used upon firing and chemical rockets that fire upon leaving the barrel.

My thought is that magnetic acceleration is only possible with tech levels high enough to achieve mass drivers and gauss weapons.

Having said that, I could be conflating different RPGs in my head.

CT has, since Bk4, put practical gauss weapons at TL12.

Accelerator Weapons are essentially gyrojets. The addition of the initial explosive to give them a kick start was a DARPA recommendation after seeing the issues of the gyrojet. I don't know that any actually have been made.

Railguns are actually around now, and have been since the 1970's. They just are limited uses, as the rails degrade rapidly from arc effects.
DARPA has been researching them since the ARPA days. They're also used in some materials testing labs, since they generate a huge force in a short space without harmful gas.

 

[Fovean]

So accelerator weapons could be the precursor/prototype of gauss weaponry. They've always occupied completely different spaces in my head. But that makes a kind of sense, presuming the magnetic acceleration is of low enough recoil to maintain the Zero G trait.

That seems logical in my decidedly gun-ignorant mind. A light magnetic throw saves more room in the round for propellant/payload.

 

[sabredog]

So accelerator weapons could be the precursor/prototype of gauss weaponry. They've always occupied completely different spaces in my head. But that makes a kind of sense, presuming the magnetic acceleration is of low enough recoil to maintain the Zero G trait.

That seems logical in my decidedly gun-ignorant mind. A light magnetic throw saves more room in the round for propellant/payload.

Magnetic rail and coil (gauss) guns will still have recoil. You can't avoid the physics. The only reason a self-propelled round would have a reduced one but still have a high terminal velocity would be because the propellant device could be multi-staged. The initial charge just lofts it out of the gun with a second burn accelerating it from there. That's what I've assumed Snub and Accelerator weapons do. And the low velocity from the tiny charge is why to have any real effect on a target is why they use explosive warheads. As an aside, the lower the velocity of the round, the better the warhead can be since the shell doesn't have to be as strong as one shot from a higher velocity gun.

Gauss guns can't do that since like with a cpr gun the round has to reach its highest velocity by the time it leaves the barrel. It might have a slightly lower felt recoil or at least muzzle flip, but I think that would be negligible. The real determining factor for that will be velocity + mass of the round. Muzzle devices for reducing flip and perceived recoil will not work on a gauss weapon because there are no escaping gasses to redirect, just like there is no way to silence one for the same reasons.

So no, accelerator weapons are not a precursor to gauss weapons - completely different technology, designs, effects, and philosophy behind the design. The first is designed for low initial velocity and recoil with the impact on the target relying primarily on the warhead in the round....and the second is high initial velocity for longer ranges and greater penetration dependent on the mass of the round and downrange velocity.

The exception would be a gauss weapon that fired from a low velocity and had a large caliber round to contain the warhead. Like the 10mm used for the snub gun. But that has its own design issues.

Gauss weapons use small caliber rounds with penetrators in them to take advantage of the higher velocity that can be achieved with the power of the weapon firing a small round, and they use a sabot to aid in this. The round is very small which increases it's penetrating power given it will be much faster than a larger round fired from a similar weapon at the same level of magnetic power. For it to be used to fire a useful explosive round the velocity would have to be lower and round larger. The recoil would adjust accordingly, but it would still be there. Shotguns use lower power (slower-burning) propellant to create the energy to propel a large round downrange without tearing all the muscles in your shoulder, but the drop off of the round downrange is faster than with the rifle shooting a higher-velocity, smaller round using faster-burning propellant to get the higher initial impulse. But, in both cases you get a high felt recoil and different levels of muzzle flip only because of the different designs and weights of the weapons.

There are a lot of other considerations but game-wise it is more expedient to just have a purpose-built gauss weapon for low-G use that will, in the end, do the same thing as a cpr accelerator weapon merely using a different means of propelling the round. But if the magnets are the only means of propelling the round you will still get higher recoil (especially with a larger caliber round) than if you used a low initial velocity combined with a rocker charge that accelerates the round after it leaves the barrel. And that would just complicate and increase the cost of an already elegant design to no better effect so why bother?

 

[kilemall]

Hmm, if I were in the market for something like this, I'd want the gas and associated power system to be associated with the magazine clip so I'm not swapping barrels in combat.


There is definitely a TL progression in mag weapons from big heavy mass drivers to the VRF guns to man-portable, a nice proto progression to tech dev and early on in the game too.


Going into my deep dive of the Striker system, it's clear that there is a progression in recoil handling that allows the more powerful ACRs and gauss weapons to remain controllable, not to mention the P/FGMPs. Clearly there is a gravitic system to make the non-suit MPs work that might scale down to lesser recoils and make heavier ACR/gauss feasible, I just figured the x-ray laser ended up fulfilling that low-end recoil role.

 

[sabredog]

There is definitely a TL progression in mag weapons from big heavy mass drivers to the VRF guns to man-portable, a nice proto progression to tech dev and early on in the game too.


Going into my deep dive of the Striker system, it's clear that there is a progression in recoil handling that allows the more powerful ACRs and gauss weapons to remain controllable, not to mention the P/FGMPs. Clearly there is a gravitic system to make the non-suit MPs work that might scale down to lesser recoils and make heavier ACR/gauss feasible, I just figured the x-ray laser ended up fulfilling that low-end recoil role.

Sure, there is an evolutionary sort of progression, but bigger is not always better. Really what you should look at is efficiency and reliability - that is what drives weapons design. Does a larger caliber gauss weapon make a better weapon than the PGMP-12 or a laser rifle? Is it cheaper? Is it easier to make? Why use it when at TL-12+ you open up more powerful, accurate, and better ranged high energy weapons?

A new CPR technology that is being looked into as the driving force behind the new Leopard 3 and M1 MBT's is plasma ignition guns. The propellant is ignited with a plasma charge that fires deep into the charge, igniting more of it at once and creating a much higher initial impulse than conventional explosive ignition. Apparently the interest is in it allowing for a much higher initial velocity with the same caliber as you would have with a larger gun, but without the drawbacks (ammunition space limits, recoil increase, weight, etc) in having something like the new Russian 130mm MBT gun to get the same effect. The charge detonates faster, which doesn't significantly increase recoil, and that saves on wear and tear as well as increasing second shot response times.

The only thing I wonder about is if it has a mechanical backup system for when the plasma one fails. But I imagine it will.

Maybe you could introduce something like that sort of thing into ACR's to get better results than the standard design without a huge increase in cost or reliability? The ACR already uses a caseless round which implies they solved the crumbling, gang-firing issues caseless has always had under actual field (not gun range) conditions, and caseless would lend itself nicely to plasma ignition - the power supply could even be included in the magazines like it is with the gauss rifle.

But I wouldn't go higher than the 9mm Striker ACR round. That's a pretty big rifle round already for even a battle rifle (as opposed to an even smaller caliber assault rifle) and it gets good results. Maybe 10mm, but that's going to punish the heck out of whoever fires it.

Recoil systems are good, but I imagine they have limits - the energy has to go somewhere and if it isn't into the user where does it go? Even dampened recoil systems today have their limitations: that's why when firing something like a .50 rifle or 20mm you have to do it prone or with a locked down brace. And if you are firing any rifle on automatic - even with burst fire - you are just making it all worse. Weapon wear is faster depending on the size of round and velocity, and recoil dampening won't prevent that. Malfunctions happen more often and the whole gun weighs more, as does the ammunition.

I don't mean to sound the lecturing pedant, but those are the RL considerations that go into weapon design and development. Who uses the gun (the military) and how (tactics/logistics) drives it, and then it goes into the civilian market from there. Hunting rifles, most handguns and shotguns are the exception as they are designed more towards hunting and civilian personal defense. Some handguns are the exception, but they just prove the rule.

And look at a RL gun: the AR-15. Sure the thing is like a LEGO set for shooters, but when you use one for actual combat or defense (like law enforcement) one pretty much ends up like another. You don't hang all sorts of tacticool stuff on it because you instead want to enhance the things that make it good for what it does already: light, high firepower, short, easy to maneuver in tight places. Anything that varies from those just counters or negates them. I've had several different configurations of sights, furniture, and moving parts on mine, for example, and I keep coming back to just a basic configuration working best within the design parameters and goals of the weapon.

If I want some that shoots more accurately at greater than 500 yards I'll use a different gun, if I want something that does more damage, I'll use a different gun. But stick a hunting rifle scope on it only makes it heavier and more awkward in anything but distance positional shooting and the round still doesn't perform well at those ranges anyway....same with using a larger caliber: now the gun shoots heavier and punishes me for using .something like 6.5 SPC instead of 5.56. Maybe .300 Blackout, but now I'm into the subsonic short range caliber and why not just use a PDW with a higher velocity and better weights?

Sometimes just because you can doesn't mean it is practical or better to do so.

Keeping those RL considerations in mind makes for a better understanding of the choices made by M. Miller and company in how the weapon development profiles were chosen and designed. Anyway, just some thoughts to help get the creative juices flowing.

 

[kilemall]

While your response is something to keep in mind, I'm looking at the whole Striker progression as development/response.


Weapons do not exist in a kooltoy vacuum but are for a specific purpose, and in a higher tech combat armor/BD environment there is a GREAT need for tincan popping.


As such I believe there ARE missing categories of weapons, specifically BD-wielded melee weapons, a cheaper ACR/Gauss up in that penetrator 18-25 value then the RPGs for the tincans, gun shields for the BDs to try and survive the MPs, and of course my fave, the RP-A plasma gun that by TL15 is effectively the form factor of an M-60.


So in that vein, I'm thinking more like the LAG updated with a high tech propulsion system, hence something like a Gauss LAG.

 

[sabredog]

While your response is something to keep in mind, I'm looking at the whole Striker progression as development/response.


Weapons do not exist in a kooltoy vacuum but are for a specific purpose, and in a higher tech combat armor/BD environment there is a GREAT need for tincan popping.

That's kind of what I said. Just in greater detail and with examples of why. The tin can poppers at BD TL's are the gauss rifle, VRFGG, PGMP-12 & 13 and laser rifle. Although, in Striker the Gauss Rifle isn't the buzzsaw it is in CT rules, the VRFGG still is. There are also RAM AGL's and autocannon of assorted sizes, though IMHO the 20mm high and hyper velocity types are more than adequate and cheap for their effects on destroying BD troops.

As such I believe there ARE missing categories of weapons, specifically BD-wielded melee weapons, a cheaper ACR/Gauss up in that penetrator 18-25 value then the RPGs for the tincans, gun shields for the BDs to try and survive the MPs, and of course my fave, the RP-A plasma gun that by TL15 is effectively the form factor of an M-60.


So in that vein, I'm thinking more like the LAG updated with a high tech propulsion system, hence something like a Gauss LAG.

BD-melee weapons seem somewhat "kooltoy". What sort of melee weapon would you need other than a higher density cutlass or blade? A plasma torch? Given whatever it was that it would have to contend with something made to help you survive on a nuclear battlefield?

A gauss LAG would be good. I recommend one I came up with using Striker back in the 80's that is 20mm, has an adjustable power setting and fires collapsing rounds in a pinch. The SSG-88.

With three power settings the thing shoots in semi-automatic or burst fire (3 rounds). It isn't a VRFGG so it isn't made for suppression fire or area denial, but is for tank-breaking and bunker busting.

The lowest setting allows for burst fire of the same, but usually that is used for KEAP. At the middle power setting it fires sabot KEAPER rounds for regular sniping and soft targets.

The highest setting fires hypervelocity collapsing rounds on semi-auto. They can be fed into the ammo belt chute on the fly if the gunner has a loader, but they have to be kept in a damper box.

Since damper boxes are heavy, and this beast needs a lot of power and is heavy, too, it has to be used either with BD (with or without a grav pack to help with recoil) or more commonly in the field, a small grav ammo sled that also acts as a gun carriage. The sled has a enough power and space to carry the weapon, 200 standard rounds, and 10 collapsing rounds for about 72 hours. If you use the fusion power plant model for BD then you can recharge the sled, but normally it is recharged by a military vehicle typically the IFV/AFV the troops ride in or are supported by.

Though one creative group of players once jury-rigger the SSG-88 into a city's power grid via a nearby street lamp. They then laid down lethal fire and all kinds of mayhem down the street to cover the retreat of their fellow mercs to the star port. The collapsing rounds were a thing to behold when they hit the enemy grav tanks.

The ammo sled is operated remotely by the gunner or loader (if there is one) and has a "follow me" setting to glide along behind the gunner without him having to constantly control the thing. Kind of like some video drones do today with terrain avoidance, etc.. The sled grounds for use as a gun carriage and the gun mounts to a powered pintel that allows the whole thing to be remotely targeted and fired for ambushes and other situations where sticking your head up in battle isn't a good idea even wearing BD. Each ammo box has 100 rounds using a powered feed to reduce stoppages in remote mode. The feeds have to be switched manually, though, when they run dry or the gunner wants a different ammo type.

The SSG-88 is TL-13 and acts as a support weapon for platoons, though the original intent was for squad support. The Gauss SAW took that role instead, with the VRFGG mounted on the support vehicles.

 

[Condottiere]

At the same technological level, weapons and protection tend to be balanced.

 

[sabredog]

Not always, high energy weapons and a few others tip the balance, even at lower TL's..

In both the CT and Striker/AHL combat systems the PGMP-12/13 and the VRFGG will penetrate BD easily. Even higher TL BD/Combat.

As will RAM grenades, auto-cannon, and some other low tech weapons systems. in my experience in both RL and game-wise current weapons tend to defeat armor, and it is always easier to make a better weapon than better armor.

BD may be good armor protection, but it's not some Battletech Mech.

For example, per Striker a PGMP-12 hitting TL-14+ BD with a PEN of 20 at effective range. The armor has a value of 18. Subtracting the armor from the PEN gives us +2 and we roll 2D6 to add to that. An average of 7+2= 9. Per the wounding table that makes for a Serious Wound. Because it is an explosive/laser/high energy weapon the damage is increased one step to death. Even if it wasn't death the serious wound result knocks the target out of the fight; two serious wounds kill him.

And I'm not even considering the potential for multiple hits from automatic fire and explosives.


A mere TL-9 RAM grenade (basically an RPG) has a PEN of 28. The result against TL-15 BD is even worse for the target.

A TL-13 RAM Rifle Grenade (like shoots off the muzzle of a Gauss Rifle or ACR) has a PEN of 38.

A TL-7 recoilless rifle has a PEN of 40 (HEAP).

A PGMP-13 is 25.

And so on....

My point being that there are all kinds of weapons that defeat not only contemporary armor, but will do the same thing to advanced. We see that all the time today on the battlefield and in the civilian arena it is the same with lesser weapons.

 

[aramis]

A gauss weapon relies upon a light round and much rapid acceleration of a small AP projectile; said acceleration ends at the end of the barrel.

A Gyrojet is a rocket shaped like a rifle cartridge (non-necked) When triggered, it ignites, then accelerates. Generally, extremely fast fuel is used, for maximum thrust. Trigger-to-barrel-exit time is up to a second with the 1960's one. Modern, we can assume probably under 0.2 sec, and easily over 100 G's... for about 0.5 sec. which gets 500m/s and crosses 125m by burnout. Oh, and expect QUITE the flame over the arm. It does, however, have a lag between triggering ignition and pressure up to useful.

An Accelerator Pistol is essentially a rifle-cartridge sized rocket mounted into a short but wide pistol round. The pistol round kicks it out of the barrel at maybe 50 m/s (a good pro baseball pitch), and it also ignites the rocket motor at the same. The motor only begins providing real force after a few meters past the barrel, but the weapon's already spinning and flying, so it's more likely going to go where pointed. Note that the ignition lag is mitigated by the initial kicker charge.

A Gauss-Accelerator is possible... but the magnetic force is likely only going to affect the casing. Like the standard, it's going to have to ignite the rocket. Like the Accelerator, the initial velocity is enough for accuracy AND to hit like a heavy punch; unlike the standard, gas expansion rates are NOT the limiter on barrel velocity, but you also don't pre-pressurize the chamber of the rocket.... Still, it's likely to be another 500m/s

The confusion stems from the other name for Gauss weapons: Magnetic Accelerator Weapons. MAW aka Gauss, has zip-all to do with the Accelerator Pistol/Accelerator Rifle of Bk 4/Striker/Mayday/MegaTraveller/TNE/T4

 

[sabredog]

A Gauss-Accelerator is possible... but the magnetic force is likely only going to affect the casing. Like the standard, it's going to have to ignite the rocket. Like the Accelerator, the initial velocity is enough for accuracy AND to hit like a heavy punch; unlike the standard, gas expansion rates are NOT the limiter on barrel velocity, but you also don't pre-pressurize the chamber of the rocket.... Still, it's likely to be another 500m/s

You could use an inertial ignition system to fire the rocket when the round reaches the velocity it would be at when it leaves the barrel. Clunky, but that would work. They can be made small enough today even - my sabre accelerometer from the 80's (when they still taught the use of the point) worked fine for that sort of thing in triggering a an electric impulse on a full stop after reaching a certain speed. Those devices didn't work so well all the time, especially if you missed a hard cut but your opponent made a stop cut - but we had judges to tell what was going on. They stopped using them when the rules and techniques for sabre switched to cut attack and defense only.

So if you had a fusing that that used a more advanced version of that device set in the reverse of my sabre's to tell when the rocket reached a few hundred feet per second - well below subsonic - then it fires the rocket and off you go.

But that is all pretty complicated and inelegant for a combat weapon. Heck, why not, as has been pointed out, just use a regular accelerator gun? But...it makes for a fun gerdankenexperiment.

JTAS # 17 had a gun called the Assault Rocket Launcher. It was a sort of super accelerator ACR rifle that fired rocket-boosted heavy rifle rounds to devastating effect. To quote from the article:

"Introduced at
tech level 10, the ARL is an alternative
to the ACR as the standard non-energy
infantry small arm. It is used from TL 10
to TL 13, where it is finally superceded
by the gauss rifle."


I've had it in use IMATU since the article came out since it nicely filled that gap between TL-10 and 13 if you had the sort of world that needed heavier support firepower but while at the requisite TL didn't have energy weapon industries. Also, given it fires on automatic it was a far better zero-g assault boarding weapon than anything else, though you obviously need room to use it. And naturally, the thing creates dense smoke so some sort of thermal imaging is a must while firing inside a ship or building, or at least a kill sack worth of targets you can hose down blindly.

"Ol' Smokey" was what it was affectionately called by one player who loved his LAG until he got one of these.


The author says the rifle is quiet, but I think it would be the opposite, especially on automatic. And there wouldn't be any way to make it quiet, either. It'd be quieter than an M60 I guess, but the hissing and banging of the rockets would make a heck of a racket. Like firing a machine gun using bottle rockets.

Also, something like this weapon (as with an accelerator rifle) would be really dirty after even moderate use. The thing would be prone to jamming up by carbon build up in the barrel but even more so in the ignition chamber. Especially since the thing is sealed up and there is no way for that residue to leave the chamber at all. This was a problem with the development of the H&K G11, too. It sounds like a good idea to someone who isn't going to have to clear an action quickly that has malfunctioned in battle. If it fired from an open-bolt type of action that would not only reduce the build up to allow for more reliable autofire it would also reduce the heat buildup in the chamber -which would also cause a lot of problems with jamming, gang-firing, and metal stress. In a weapon like this the "open bolt" would have to be limited to venting the chamber so as to contain the most pressure from the rocket charge as possible while still allowing for some gasses and heat to exit. It can be done - it's an old concept that started with recoilless rifles.

In game I just require that the weapon be meticulously maintained otherwise it can jam (a round is stuck entering the chamber from the magazine) or misfire (the round is stuck in the barrel or chamber after ignition and might gangfire the rest of the rounds as the rocket burns off back into the chamber and magazine) when autofired. But then, I'm nit-picky about weapons (among others) simulation in my game.

 

[kilemall]

That's kind of what I said. Just in greater detail and with examples of why. The tin can poppers at BD TL's are the gauss rifle, VRFGG, PGMP-12 & 13 and laser rifle. Although, in Striker the Gauss Rifle isn't the buzzsaw it is in CT rules, the VRFGG still is. There are also RAM AGL's and autocannon of assorted sizes, though IMHO the 20mm high and hyper velocity types are more than adequate and cheap for their effects on destroying BD troops.

VRFGG is your basic fixed position/crew weapon tool for BD 'management'. I had in mind man-portable weaponry, particularly ones hauled around by second-tier non-powered combat armor troops. Depending on how you treat Reflec, the x-ray laser rifle may not be the lower end solution.

So I've done some 20mm LAG type work, have to bend the rules a bit as the arty rules don't really scale down to man-portable well.

RAM AGLs are another kind of problem, they are TOO good at BD busting too early in the TL tree, I would tend to go with the light laser PD some have mentioned along with perhaps EW without gimping their obvious capabilities.

Between AGLs and ubiquitious MPs, BD troops are very expensive cannon fodder, almost better to just drop off cloth/vacc suit reflec with AGLs and lasers.

So I'm looking at using that 100kg lift capability to have BD troops use a shield. Present the shield as angled and you might just end up in the hospital instead of a bodyless headstone at the world service cemetery.

BD-melee weapons seem somewhat "kooltoy". What sort of melee weapon would you need other than a higher density cutlass or blade? A plasma torch? Given whatever it was that it would have to contend with something made to help you survive on a nuclear battlefield?

I didn't really have main force planetary battle in mind, more close-in work in shipboard action that can penetrate more modern armor/vacc suits, or in a planetside operation in a closed facility.

The idea would be that modern armor largely negates melee weaponry especially the utility of having a backup weapon particularly a slashing weapon that incapacitates with tears in a vacuum. But we know our Marines make Cutlasses mandatory, and they aren't THAT dumb to be just ceremonial- so how are they relevant at higher tech?

My starting point is that BD suits in CT are doubling strength, so typically STR 14-22. So we can double the weight of the weapons while maintaining their basic form factor and function, or increase their toughness while making them lighter.

A combination of advanced materials, finer tougher edges and more kinetic impact swinging a heavier blade at higher speeds should allow for better penetration chances.

So comparing the characteristic DM of a regular Cutlass vs. a marine BD Cutlass would, by CT standards, look like this-


Weapon DM+ DM- Damage


Cutlass 11+ 7- 3D
BD Cutlass 22+ 14- 6D


I have been working the Striker stats so haven't really micronalyzed the CT armor pen, but probably something like +2/+3 across the board. Cost x4 minimum, probably more like the multiples of the various armor materials from Striker.

Primary weapon of choice? Probably not. Handy weapon when ammo runs out or is damaged? Decidedly yes. And, nice part of such a heavy weapon, only other BD suited people are going to effectively wield it.

 

[sabredog]

When I used Striker back in the day I redid the armor stats to fill out the TL's left out (15+) and increased the values of BD and Combat across the TL's from the time they show up to TL-15. BD was always a better armor but neither would keep out a high energy weapon. Striker's pretty unforgiving with the HE/laser/High Energy boosts damage level rule.

I did the same for the CT combat rules to better reflect how BD and combat ought to provide better protection against kinetic weapons than it has in the basic rules. At least I figure it ought to protect against any small arms of at least one TL less than the one the armor comes out at. Protect doesn't always mean stop though, but it should mean a better chance of survival if hit. Might not be much, but better than just looking at the tables and saying anyone hit dies this turn.

TL-15 BD is rated at 25 for example, and TL-13 BD is 15. Combat is 10 at TL-10 and tops out at 18 at TL-15.

For CT the armor DM is increased by TL. So for TL-15 BD the DM is +6. It helps increase the chance of avoiding the Gauss Rifle buzzsaw as well as energy weapons, but not so much that the wearer doesn't need to keep his head down. He isn't a tank.

I also increased the spread on the wounding tables for Striker. For PC's the results are varied levels of dice damage. It provided more granularity to the damage model more suitable to role-playing. For generic NPC's I use the regular Lt/Hvy/Death tables so it is fast playing.

NPC's that are effectively my PC's use the the first table for the same role-playing reasons as PC's.

If you want the tables I have to look over and see if there is anything you can use I'll post them.

 

[sabredog]

BTW: I wouldn't make the melee weapons lighter. The increased speed and strength of the BD, including the weight behind the blow from the suit (you always put your weight into it unless you are using something like a rapier) will amplify the penetration and damage a lot and be the reason for the increase. If you make the weapon lighter, instead of heavier, then you not only give up much of the potential for the kinetic energy transfer into the target but also make it easier to break regardless of the material.

I would make the weapon, say a cutlass-y thing, denser for strength, and with the balance having more weight towards the tip than otherwise. This will increase the impact speed and energy. It wouldn't be easy to use with such an awkward balance unless you were in powered armor, but that adds to the mystique, too. Think of it being thicker, heavier, and with power-boosted strength behind it backed up with the mass of a guy in BD to block incoming strikes, too. As well as chop through barriers.