SD+SB in Middle Earth

[Patrick Ogaard]

I think its best summed up in the notion of....

If the shit hits the fan big style while scouting and you end up in a close engagement....do you want a pistol in one hand and a knife in the other....or a pistol in one hand and a sword in the other.....?


Also for anyone intrested I am starting on a fic based on this....I'd like to know who wants to be in it....

For the grunts, the sword is still a waste of time. Let's say we're talking about our main force - our main, assault rifle wielding force - the firepower advantage we'd wield over sword-wielding infantry would be so huge it wouldn't even be funny. Swordsmen wouldn't even get close enough to take a swing 99% of the time. As for the 1%... well you can't have evertything, but the allocation of training time to sword practice and the extra weight of the sword are not worth trading off for the very rare instances when a sword would be useful. You just can't have everything.

And let's say we raise and equip a local force using rolling block breech loaders, or even percussion rifles. The British fought sword wielding Scots in their numerous border clashes. And the vast majority of the time, the redcoats, with smoothbore brown bess muskets, that couldn't hope to hit a man past 80 yards except by luck, beat the boots off the Scots with their claymores and shields. Even in close combat, the British infantry stood up quite well to the Scots. They had the tactic of keeping a tight formation, and each man in the line would thrust, not for the man in front of him, but for the man to his right, in front of his mate in the line next to him. This had the effect of striking a Scot on his unprotected right side, which the shield didn't cover. The long brown bess with an 18 inch bayonet on the end, also had more reach than the claymore (and this is the one-handed, basket-hilted broadsword, as opposed to the long, two-handed claymore proper).

Bear in mind, that was with short range, smoothbore muskets. The development of the Minie Ball in the 1850s permitted muskets to be rifled, and still maintain a faster rate of fire than the older, solid ball firing rifles. Now, instead of 80 yards range, a soldier could shoot accurately out to 500. This was the primary weapon of the American Civil War, and it made close quarters combat very rare. Attacking formations were decimated before they ever got close, a la Fredricksburg; ir if they did manage to reach your lines, as the Confederate troops did during Pickett's charge at Gettysburg, there were so few of them left by the time they got there, they lacked the strength to take and hold your positions. Bayonet wounds were exceedingly rare in during the Civil War, because the soldiers almost never got close enough to fight at close quarters anymore. The long range rifle had opened up ranges tremendously.

I'm telling you folks, as a former infantryman in the U.S. army, swords will simply not pay enough dividends to make the training time they demand, and extra weight penalty they carry a worthwhile trade off.

I seriously like the idea of swords, but you're quite right: Reliable revolvers and semiautomatic handguns make swords effectively obsolete. A sword complete with scabbard should weigh in at something around 1.5 to 2 kilograms, and for that weight you could carry a lot of ready-loaded magazines for your M9 Beretta, or even a second pistol with reloads.

Swords should be an option for anyone with a yen for being a swordsman. They should be obligatory for anyone intending to play officer and diplomat, or those undercover as merchants and the like, and wearing a sword without knowing how to use it is dangerous. No one else would have an actual need for a sword as standard equipment, since everyone should be wearing a holstered pistol and a combat knife or dagger at all times.

Any swords captured or acquired as gifts should certainly be retained and kept available at the main base. The use of swords should be covered by general close quarters battle training, along with spear fighting and the use of axe and mace. After initial training, though, the majority of troops would not need more than a refresher hour every week as part of regular physical training.

What might be more useful than a sword for the grunt types is a solid, non-folding entrenching tool with a usable point and made of steel good enough to take an edge. Even with that, though, the first line of defense should be the rifle or pistol, followed by the bayonet.

[Perinquus]

Just on the issue of pistols, I'd seriously vote for a .45 automatic instead of a 9mm. I'd imagine, facing armored foes, that you'd want to stick with FMJ ammo over hollowpoints. The .45 will still go through chain and even plate, and will have more stopping power. This is a serious issue when facing large, powerful, aggressive, tenacious foes (like the Uruk-Hai). As U.S. troops discovered in the Philippines fighting the Moro tribesmen, and the Brits discovered in their various colonial wars, larger caliber bullets just have more oomph.

[Patrick Ogaard]

welding would be interesting without a power source or gas or spare parts

For welding, you've got access to various things. The fully stocked medical clinic at the base should certainly have a lot of oxygen available, though that may not actually be useful. Also, if the medical clinic and chemistry lab both are up to snuff, they need generators and lots of electrical and electronic equipment to work, which means lots of power and lots of wiring and other stuff that could potentially be salvaged and jury-rigged.

Potentially more useful in terms of mobility would be the fact that the scenario specifies 150 HMMWVs of various makes. That vehicle type uses a pair of 12 Volt batteries in series.

That means that, ignoring the possible presence of a machine shop to service the vehicles (which should include gas and arc welding gear), the group has at least 300 12 Volt car batteries to work with.

[Cpt_Frank]

Just on the issue of pistols, I'd seriously vote for a .45 automatic instead of a 9mm. I'd imagine, facing armored foes, that you'd want to stick with FMJ ammo over hollowpoints. The .45 will still go through chain and even plate, and will have more stopping power. This is a serious issue when facing large, powerful, aggressive, tenacious foes (like the Uruk-Hai). As U.S. troops discovered in the Philippines fighting the Moro tribesmen, and the Brits discovered in their various colonial wars, larger caliber bullets just have more oomph.

M-1911-A1 hi-cap then with 12 round mags.

[Sea Skimmer]

Just on the issue of pistols, I'd seriously vote for a .45 automatic instead of a 9mm. I'd imagine, facing armored foes, that you'd want to stick with FMJ ammo over hollowpoints. The .45 will still go through chain and even plate, and will have more stopping power. This is a serious issue when facing large, powerful, aggressive, tenacious foes (like the Uruk-Hai). As U.S. troops discovered in the Philippines fighting the Moro tribesmen, and the Brits discovered in their various colonial wars, larger caliber bullets just have more oomph.

Today's 9mm weapons are far above the power of the .38 cal revolvers the M1911 replaced. And since the training requirements are far lower and we do have a limited ammo supply it’s a better choice.

[Cpt_Frank]

Today's 9mm weapons are far above the power of the .38 cal revolvers the M1911 replaced. And since the training requirements are far lower and we do have a limited ammo supply it’s a better choice.

Before we know slip into an endless debate over which weapon to chose:
the M-1911 is reliable and simple and easy to maintain, so I'd rather go with those.

[Patrick Ogaard]

Just on the issue of pistols, I'd seriously vote for a .45 automatic instead of a 9mm. I'd imagine, facing armored foes, that you'd want to stick with FMJ ammo over hollowpoints. The .45 will still go through chain and even plate, and will have more stopping power. This is a serious issue when facing large, powerful, aggressive, tenacious foes (like the Uruk-Hai). As U.S. troops discovered in the Philippines fighting the Moro tribesmen, and the Brits discovered in their various colonial wars, larger caliber bullets just have more oomph.

For a skilled shooter (which most of the folks won't be), I would not doubt that. Problem is, the scenario specifies specific ammunition types to be in supply: 9mm Parabellum, .40 S&W, 5.56mm NATO, 7.62mm NATO, and 12 gauge shotgun shells. And that's it.

My own idea, stated too far back for anyone to be likely to find it anymore, is the following:

1. Standardize on 9mm handguns. It may take two or three shots, but it will work and has high penetration. The M9 Beretta with 15-round magazines would likely be a decent choice.

2. Split the rifles primarily between 7.62mm semiautomatic battle rifles and a smaller contingent of 5.56mm assault rifles, though sniper types should certainly go with whatever floats their boat as long as the caliber matches what is available.

3. No more than a handful of shotguns and SMGs should be included in the mix.

4. The .40 S&W rounds and 12 gauge shells can be used to make standard booby traps, such as field-expedient landmines, as well as a resource for ready-made explosives, but their major use should be to serve as ready-made ammunition for single-shot breechloaders to be used by auxiliaries and allies. (This last is based in part on the fact that the base ammunition stores have to run at least into the low millions to serve a force of 300 to 400 for a campaign running about 19 years.)

[NecronLord]

Argh. this thread has grown again. Someone summerise the last 8 pages please?

[Cpt_Frank]

*snip*

We changed the scenario several pages ago. Ammo is now 7.62x51, 9x19mm and .45 ACP.

[Enforcer Talen]

person 1: let's steal the ring.
person 2: no. lets ask them for it.

[Sea Skimmer]

Today's 9mm weapons are far above the power of the .38 cal revolvers the M1911 replaced. And since the training requirements are far lower and we do have a limited ammo supply it’s a better choice.

Before we know slip into an endless debate over which weapon to chose:
the M-1911 is reliable and simple and easy to maintain, so I'd rather go with those.

So are many 9mm weapon, and they are easy to shoot, which is more important. If someone needs to yank out there handgun they need to be able to get off shots with it and hit somthing with them.

[Cpt_Frank]

So are many 9mm weapon, and they are easy to shoot, which is more important. If someone needs to yank out there handgun they need to be able to get off shots with it and hit somthing with them.

We could take the Browning HiPower. The Mauser C-96/712 (a late variant of the C-96 that featured a detachable 20rd magazine) is also nice but too heavy.

[Perinquus]

Today's 9mm weapons are far above the power of the .38 cal revolvers the M1911 replaced. And since the training requirements are far lower and we do have a limited ammo supply it’s a better choice.

Before we know slip into an endless debate over which weapon to chose:
the M-1911 is reliable and simple and easy to maintain, so I'd rather go with those.

So are many 9mm weapon, and they are easy to shoot, which is more important. If someone needs to yank out there handgun they need to be able to get off shots with it and hit somthing with them.

The difficulty in coping with the recoil of a .45 automatic is greatly overexaggerated. It just doesn't kick that much harder. And given the control setup of the 1911, especially the single action trigger, it's actually easier to shoot if you're well trained. And what numerous police shootings have revealed since the 80s, when departments began switching over to the 9mm in large numbers is that it really doesn't have as much stopping power as a larger caliber cartridge. This was the impetus behind the development of such cartridges as the .40S&W.

[Perinquus]

So are many 9mm weapon, and they are easy to shoot, which is more important. If someone needs to yank out there handgun they need to be able to get off shots with it and hit somthing with them.

We could take the Browning HiPower. The Mauser C-96/712 (a late variant of the C-96 that featured a detachable 20rd magazine) is also nice but too heavy.

The broomhandle is too big, and too mechanically complex. It's a bit more prone to breakdowns. I like the Hi-Power though (I own one), but I still favor the 1911 (I own one of those too).

[Cpt_Frank]

The broomhandle is too big, and too mechanically complex. It's a bit more prone to breakdowns. I like the Hi-Power though (I own one), but I still favor the 1911 (I own one of those too).

The problem with the C-96 is less the size than the weight (2kg) and the fact the field stripping procedure is very complex.

The 1911 has a very small magazine but there's also a variant with a double-stack magazine so we'd definetely have to take these.

[Durandal]

Ren, this entire exchange can be summed up as follows:

REN: We can't do this alone. We need allies.
US: No, we can do this alone. Here's a plan that would let us do it alone that is extremely low-risk.
REN: But this plan will alienate all our potential allies.
US: Are you listening? We don't need allies. That's the whole point of the plan.
[repeat ad infinitum]

You haven't pointed out any real flaws in my plan, just obstacles to success that are not insurmountable; in fact, they are extremely easy to overcome.

If Frodo keeps the Ring on him and is not home, wait.
If Frodo has guests in the house, wait.
If we need more intelligence, send in operatives disguised as travelers.
If we can't destroy the Ring at the Shire, take it back to the base.
If rangers turn up and start tracking us, ambush them and either kill or stun them. We'll have the numerical and technological advantage. They will not be difficult to dispatch. Automatic weapons trump swords every time.

From there, it's home free. They bring the Ring back to base, we run some experiments with it and encase it in a 2-ton steel block if those don't work. We then go to Rivendel, inform Elrond that we are in possession of the Ring, have rendered it completely inaccessible and that we intend to bring it to Mount Doom to destroy it. We can then ask for help from all the people of Middle Earth, and they'll trust us, because we will have had the Ring and not used it. Indeed, we'll have rendered the Ring totally inaccessible to anyone. In other words, there isn't a single possibility in my plan that is an insurmountable obstable.

Your plan, on the other hand, has an insurmountable possibility. If Gandalf says no, game over. The commando team is forced into a confrontation that it will lose; we will have lost men and equipment, will have wasted effort and planning and will have revealed our presence earlier than necessary, squandering our 18-year advantage. In other words, everything hinges on Gandalf not thinking that we're completely full of shit, which is not a bet that any sensible commander would take. We need to take the Ring because we can't rely on events in Middle Earth unfolding as they did in the books after we interfere. If we control the Ring, we control the way things go.

A plan like yours turns into an unpredictable nightmare if it goes wrong. If Gandalf says no and we try and take the Ring by force, we lose. If he says no and we just leave, we come back empty-handed. Mine, again, is robust, and allows for individual parts to not go according to plan while still making it possible to achieve the primary objective. Therefore, mine is superior.

This is the last time I'm going through this with you. Everyone else sees that my plan is superior and that your plan basically sucks because it relies on Gandalf's decision, a variable that we basically have no control over. Everything in my plan is controllable. Nothing in your plan is.

[Perinquus]

The 1911 has a very small magazine but there's also a variant with a double-stack magazine so we'd definetely have to take these.

Para-Ordnance P14. You'd want the steel frame version, as opposed to the aluminum alloy one. A few onces heavier, true, but it'll last a lot longer in use. There are a few old 1911s still in U.S. government arsenals, despite having been officailly replaced by the M9 in 1987. The most recently made ones were manufactured in 1945 (some are considerably older), and they're still serviceable. In fact, during the M9 selection, which ultimately led to the Beretta being adopted, a couple of 1911s were used as control pistols. Despite their age and wear, and having had literally millions of rounds fired through them, they still came in 3rd overall reliability. Alloy framed guns would never last that long.

[Cpt_Frank]

[quote="Perinquus"][/quote]
I agree steel frames guarantee an almost unlimited life.

[Malecoda]

welding would be interesting without a power source or gas or spare parts

For welding, you've got access to various things. The fully stocked medical clinic at the base should certainly have a lot of oxygen available, though that may not actually be useful. Also, if the medical clinic and chemistry lab both are up to snuff, they need generators and lots of electrical and electronic equipment to work, which means lots of power and lots of wiring and other stuff that could potentially be salvaged and jury-rigged.

Potentially more useful in terms of mobility would be the fact that the scenario specifies 150 HMMWVs of various makes. That vehicle type uses a pair of 12 Volt batteries in series.

That means that, ignoring the possible presence of a machine shop to service the vehicles (which should include gas and arc welding gear), the group has at least 300 12 Volt car batteries to work with.

Pardon me for ont knowing the specifics of how this relates, but. Welding power is along the lines of 600 V, 480 A, or close. The power terminates in a workpiece with a ground clamp. I was just reading how the base didn't have real intensive power supplies. Does anyone know how to make an inverter, or do we bring our own?

To gas weld, you need acetylene, so you need calcium carbonate and water and acetone and storage/generation, including diatomaceaous earth. If we have propane or methane we could cut and braze but not weld.

You also need a plethora of wrenches and precision tips and tubes and cable (and for SMAW, electrodes and for TIG, inert gas, and for MIG, inert gas and a wire feed) and hoses and valves and bottles and regulators, and safety bureaucracy, and flints and goggles and hoods and grinders and worktables. So I was just curious how that all would work out.

I say take 3 guys and put them in a Suburban with a complete TIG/stick setup, generator, and camping/survival equipment including a sniper rifle and different cutlery, and task them with convincing the Company to let them help. Who would you take and what would you say/do?

[Keevan_Colton]

I think its best summed up in the notion of....

If the shit hits the fan big style while scouting and you end up in a close engagement....do you want a pistol in one hand and a knife in the other....or a pistol in one hand and a sword in the other.....?


Also for anyone intrested I am starting on a fic based on this....I'd like to know who wants to be in it....

For the grunts, the sword is still a waste of time. Let's say we're talking about our main force - our main, assault rifle wielding force - the firepower advantage we'd wield over sword-wielding infantry would be so huge it wouldn't even be funny. Swordsmen wouldn't even get close enough to take a swing 99% of the time. As for the 1%... well you can't have evertything, but the allocation of training time to sword practice and the extra weight of the sword are not worth trading off for the very rare instances when a sword would be useful. You just can't have everything.

And let's say we raise and equip a local force using rolling block breech loaders, or even percussion rifles. The British fought sword wielding Scots in their numerous border clashes. And the vast majority of the time, the redcoats, with smoothbore brown bess muskets, that couldn't hope to hit a man past 80 yards except by luck, beat the boots off the Scots with their claymores and shields. Even in close combat, the British infantry stood up quite well to the Scots. They had the tactic of keeping a tight formation, and each man in the line would thrust, not for the man in front of him, but for the man to his right, in front of his mate in the line next to him. This had the effect of striking a Scot on his unprotected right side, which the shield didn't cover. The long brown bess with an 18 inch bayonet on the end, also had more reach than the claymore (and this is the one-handed, basket-hilted broadsword, as opposed to the long, two-handed claymore proper).

Bear in mind, that was with short range, smoothbore muskets. The development of the Minie Ball in the 1850s permitted muskets to be rifled, and still maintain a faster rate of fire than the older, solid ball firing rifles. Now, instead of 80 yards range, a soldier could shoot accurately out to 500. This was the primary weapon of the American Civil War, and it made close quarters combat very rare. Attacking formations were decimated before they ever got close, a la Fredricksburg; ir if they did manage to reach your lines, as the Confederate troops did during Pickett's charge at Gettysburg, there were so few of them left by the time they got there, they lacked the strength to take and hold your positions. Bayonet wounds were exceedingly rare in during the Civil War, because the soldiers almost never got close enough to fight at close quarters anymore. The long range rifle had opened up ranges tremendously.

I'm telling you folks, as a former infantryman in the U.S. army, swords will simply not pay enough dividends to make the training time they demand, and extra weight penalty they carry a worthwhile trade off.

I seriously like the idea of swords, but you're quite right: Reliable revolvers and semiautomatic handguns make swords effectively obsolete. A sword complete with scabbard should weigh in at something around 1.5 to 2 kilograms, and for that weight you could carry a lot of ready-loaded magazines for your M9 Beretta, or even a second pistol with reloads.

Swords should be an option for anyone with a yen for being a swordsman. They should be obligatory for anyone intending to play officer and diplomat, or those undercover as merchants and the like, and wearing a sword without knowing how to use it is dangerous. No one else would have an actual need for a sword as standard equipment, since everyone should be wearing a holstered pistol and a combat knife or dagger at all times.

Any swords captured or acquired as gifts should certainly be retained and kept available at the main base. The use of swords should be covered by general close quarters battle training, along with spear fighting and the use of axe and mace. After initial training, though, the majority of troops would not need more than a refresher hour every week as part of regular physical training.

What might be more useful than a sword for the grunt types is a solid, non-folding entrenching tool with a usable point and made of steel good enough to take an edge. Even with that, though, the first line of defense should be the rifle or pistol, followed by the bayonet.

In general the idea of swords has been for scouting forces etc that will be trying to pass for locals...meaning that swords would be a neccesary part of thier apparel even if they didnt know how to use them.....pistols being the other logical weapon for them due to easy concealability.
For massed battles, we will be using our range advantage to its fullest and so as you have said melee shouldnt be an issue, but in small numbers out there we will want to have every edge we can get.

[Ren]

Ren, this entire exchange can be summed up as follows:

REN: We can't do this alone. We need allies.
US: No, we can do this alone. Here's a plan that would let us do it alone that is extremely low-risk.
REN: But this plan will alienate all our potential allies.
US: Are you listening? We don't need allies. That's the whole point of the plan.
[repeat ad infinitum]

You are right, I just can't see how we would not need allies. Unless we can destroy the Ring ourselves and if we are planning to do that we can do that we can just ask them to help us do it.

You haven't pointed out any real flaws in my plan, just obstacles to success that are not insurmountable; in fact, they are extremely easy to overcome.

If Frodo keeps the Ring on him and is not home, wait.
If Frodo has guests in the house, wait.
If we need more intelligence, send in operatives disguised as travelers.
If we can't destroy the Ring at the Shire, take it back to the base.
If rangers turn up and start tracking us, ambush them and either kill or stun them. We'll have the numerical and technological advantage. They will not be difficult to dispatch. Automatic weapons trump swords every time.

From there, it's home free. They bring the Ring back to base, we run some experiments with it and encase it in a 2-ton steel block if those don't work. We then go to Rivendel, inform Elrond that we are in possession of the Ring, have rendered it completely inaccessible and that we intend to bring it to Mount Doom to destroy it. We can then ask for help from all the people of Middle Earth, and they'll trust us, because we will have had the Ring and not used it. Indeed, we'll have rendered the Ring totally inaccessible to anyone. In other words, there isn't a single possibility in my plan that is an insurmountable obstable.

Your plan, on the other hand, has an insurmountable possibility. If Gandalf says no, game over. The commando team is forced into a confrontation that it will lose; we will have lost men and equipment, will have wasted effort and planning and will have revealed our presence earlier than necessary, squandering our 18-year advantage. In other words, everything hinges on Gandalf not thinking that we're completely full of shit, which is not a bet that any sensible commander would take. We need to take the Ring because we can't rely on events in Middle Earth unfolding as they did in the books after we interfere. If we control the Ring, we control the way things go.

Why are you asking Gandalf with a commando team? use a diplomatic team, with no guns. Gandalf WANTS to destroy the ring If we can demenstrate with something like thermite that it is destroyable, then he will probably let us destroy it or take the thermite and do it himself, we win. If it is not destroyable we have demonstrated our good intentions by attempting to destroy it and the time needed to gather allies is shortened by that much.

They will trust you because you claim to have rendered the ring inaccesible after stealing it in the first place, possibly killing some of their allies in the process, and have been building up a massive power base? I just don't see how they can trust you at this point. This is the biggest problem that I see with your scenerio.

Of course we can't rely on the events happening the way they did in the book that is why we must either secure allies and/or attempt to destroy the Ring. You are just assume that the Ring will give you control over everyone, they may decide you are more of a threat than Sauron and try to attack you, the Ring does not let you effectivly control the scenerio ( unless you use it.)

A plan like yours turns into an unpredictable nightmare if it goes wrong. If Gandalf says no and we try and take the Ring by force, we lose. If he says no and we just leave, we come back empty-handed. Mine, again, is robust, and allows for individual parts to not go according to plan while still making it possible to achieve the primary objective. Therefore, mine is superior.

This is the last time I'm going through this with you. Everyone else sees that my plan is superior and that your plan basically sucks because it relies on Gandalf's decision, a variable that we basically have no control over. Everything in my plan is controllable. Nothing in your plan is.

Your plan assumes that your raid will go well enough that you will never be found out, and that either the ring is destroyable or you posses enough diplomatic skills to overcome the relecutance of Elrond and Gandalf after doing some deeds that they would find highly questionable. You say that everything in your plan is controllable, but you rely on Elrond helping you at a latter date if the ring is not destroyable. Why is Elrond's cooperation controllable while Gandalf's isn't? Especially when Elrond may have more reason's not to trust you in the first place.

Gandalf's cooperation is influencable by the quality of the people we send to talk to him just like the outcome of the raid is influencible by the quality of commandoes you send. You assume that his reaction is totally random but it is not. My scenerio offers him the chance to destroy the ring directly, we can prove to him that it is the One Ring by the flame test, we can demenstrate the use of thermite to potentially destroy the Ring, he can use the thermite to destroy the Ring if he doesn't trust us to be near it. Why would he refuse? Just to be stubborn? These actions make no sense for his character.

[Patrick Ogaard]

welding would be interesting without a power source or gas or spare parts

For welding, you've got access to various things. The fully stocked medical clinic at the base should certainly have a lot of oxygen available, though that may not actually be useful. Also, if the medical clinic and chemistry lab both are up to snuff, they need generators and lots of electrical and electronic equipment to work, which means lots of power and lots of wiring and other stuff that could potentially be salvaged and jury-rigged.

Potentially more useful in terms of mobility would be the fact that the scenario specifies 150 HMMWVs of various makes. That vehicle type uses a pair of 12 Volt batteries in series.

That means that, ignoring the possible presence of a machine shop to service the vehicles (which should include gas and arc welding gear), the group has at least 300 12 Volt car batteries to work with.

Pardon me for ont knowing the specifics of how this relates, but. Welding power is along the lines of 600 V, 480 A, or close. The power terminates in a workpiece with a ground clamp. I was just reading how the base didn't have real intensive power supplies. Does anyone know how to make an inverter, or do we bring our own?

To gas weld, you need acetylene, so you need calcium carbonate and water and acetone and storage/generation, including diatomaceaous earth. If we have propane or methane we could cut and braze but not weld.

You also need a plethora of wrenches and precision tips and tubes and cable (and for SMAW, electrodes and for TIG, inert gas, and for MIG, inert gas and a wire feed) and hoses and valves and bottles and regulators, and safety bureaucracy, and flints and goggles and hoods and grinders and worktables. So I was just curious how that all would work out.

I say take 3 guys and put them in a Suburban with a complete TIG/stick setup, generator, and camping/survival equipment including a sniper rifle and different cutlery, and task them with convincing the Company to let them help. Who would you take and what would you say/do?

Check this page of the thread: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... eld#321807
and look for battery welding. It would

As for the remainder, were it an issue, I'd be convincing my father to come along. He's got altogether too many practical skills combined with organizational skills, and a retired first sergeant not afraid to make soldiers sleep in pup tents in winter for failing to keep their barracks rooms clean would be good for keeping order in camp. The offer of a brace of Harley-Davidsons and a few other neat rides to be bought with elven gold might work. But, since the scenario does not specify bringing along guests, and I wouldn't be going in any event, it's not an issue.

[Durandal]

You are right, I just can't see how we would not need allies. Unless we can destroy the Ring ourselves and if we are planning to do that we can do that we can just ask them to help us do it.

That's the thing; there's a very good possibility that we could destroy it ourselves. And if we can't, we still have the option open to ask for help in going to Mount Doom.

Why are you asking Gandalf with a commando team? use a diplomatic team, with no guns. Gandalf WANTS to destroy the ring If we can demenstrate with something like thermite that it is destroyable, then he will probably let us destroy it or take the thermite and do it himself, we win. If it is not destroyable we have demonstrated our good intentions by attempting to destroy it and the time needed to gather allies is shortened by that much.

Bzzt. You totally glossed over the fact that your plan utterly fails if Gandalf refuses. He's not going to give it to us; we're humans, not exactly known for our willpower. And I'm not even sure how feasible it is to transport thermite. Does anyone know if it's volatile?

While this revision of your plan is improved, mine is still better. Mine allows us to simply take the Ring, regardless of whether or not Gandalf approves. He won't even be there when we go in. We then steal the Ring and try destroying it then and there. We have no way of controlling Gandalf's decision. We do have a way of controlling the manner in which we break into Frodo's house.

They will trust you because you claim to have rendered the ring inaccesible after stealing it in the first place, possibly killing some of their allies in the process, and have been building up a massive power base? I just don't see how they can trust you at this point. This is the biggest problem that I see with your scenerio.

So what? We can explain ourselves when the time comes. If they don't like what we did, too fucking bad. We can just tranquilize any rangers that come after us. I told you before that we don't have to kill anyone. We control the Ring, and we have the guns. In other words, we have the leverage with my plan. If we were using the Ring, then Sauron would know where it was and would have come after us.

Of course we can't rely on the events happening the way they did in the book that is why we must either secure allies and/or attempt to destroy the Ring. You are just assume that the Ring will give you control over everyone, they may decide you are more of a threat than Sauron and try to attack you, the Ring does not let you effectivly control the scenerio ( unless you use it.)

Of course it controls the scenario! What the Hell do you think the whole book was about?! We have the Ring, so we make the rules. If we can destroy the Ring, it's end-game. Therefore, taking possession of it as early as and with the surest means possible is absolutely paramount. My scenario fulfills both these requirements. Yours does not.

Your plan assumes that your raid will go well enough that you will never be found out, and that either the ring is destroyable or you posses enough diplomatic skills to overcome the relecutance of Elrond and Gandalf after doing some deeds that they would find highly questionable.

Don't be absurd. Those are called contingencies, genius. My plan has them; yours doesn't. If the rangers manage to track us, we ambush and tranquilize them. If the Ring can't be destroyed by us, then we go to Elrond. If he decides that he's going to be a prick, we tell him to get bent and that we'll just keep the Ring in our block of steel, nice and safe until he pulls his thumb out of his ass and starts working with us. He sure as Hell won't be able to take it from us.

You still haven't told everyone what your plan's contingency is if Gandalf tells us to just go fuck ourselves. Oh right, we're supposed to keep asking.

You say that everything in your plan is controllable, but you rely on Elrond helping you at a latter date if the ring is not destroyable. Why is Elrond's cooperation controllable while Gandalf's isn't? Especially when Elrond may have more reason's not to trust you in the first place.

You obviously don't understand the concept of leverage in negotiations. If we go to Gandalf and ask for the Ring, he has the leverage. If we go to Elrond with the Ring, we have the leverage and can effectively make him do whatever the fuck we want.

Gandalf's cooperation is influencable by the quality of the people we send to talk to him just like the outcome of the raid is influencible by the quality of commandoes you send. You assume that his reaction is totally random but it is not. My scenerio offers him the chance to destroy the ring directly, we can prove to him that it is the One Ring by the flame test, we can demenstrate the use of thermite to potentially destroy the Ring, he can use the thermite to destroy the Ring if he doesn't trust us to be near it. Why would he refuse? Just to be stubborn? These actions make no sense for his character.

He refuses because our backstory is shit. For all he knows, a block of thermite could be a teleportation artifact that send the thing directly to Sauron. Merely demonstrating to him that it is the Ring of Power won't make him trust us. That is just us confirming his suspicions. Furthermore, the only other person who knew that Bilbo had the Ring was Gollum. What's more likely to Gandalf? That we're people from another world, or that we're agents of the Enemy, trying to dupe him into revealing the Ring to us? Gee, let's think ...

[Keevan_Colton]

Thermite is fine to transport, it isnt volatile and can be made up with the things I've got in my garden shed....

[Coyote]

Durandal's plan operates on the philosophy that it is easier to ask forgiveness than to ask permission. It presents a fait accompli to Gandalf and the rest that cannot be avoided.

We steal the ring, and try to destroy it. If it works, great, problem solved. If it does not work, we encase it in steel. A few days later Gandalf appears, pounding angrily on the doo and demanding to know who we ar and what we've done with the Ring.

We explain, "We took it because it is evil, it must be destroyed, and it was not adequately secured in a place like Hobbiton." All these things are facts which Gandalf cannot refute. We can either show the destroyed remnants to him or the block of steel-- either way, I am sure there will be some form of magical Divination which Gandalf can use to determine that this is, indeed, the Ring.

Once Gandalf is at ease with our intention-- whether he likes our methods or not will be an academic discussion at best-- he is more than likely to join forces with us. He may be joining us only to see to it that we carry out our promise, but who cares whether he trusts us or not? He'll see soon enough that we are working very hard to secure it, destroy it, and defend the locals from evil forces. He is a practical man, and he will realize that weird, otherworldly help is better than no help at all.

As for making muskets, I know enough of the principles to make a smoothbore; we are also capable of loading down our backpacks with all sorts of books on the subject. Swords will be a waste of time for most of us, only our undercover types need them. Even they can carry crossbows, which are similar enough to firearms that it requires no great psychological leap to train on them.