StarDestroyer.Net BBS

What about using self-propelled/towed howitzer with proximity/infrared fuses to attack Harpie formations (economy of force and all that)?

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: And aren't there substances other than aluminium which would work?

If it's just EM field screening, copper certainly would but that's not terribly practical. Steel should, but the minimum thickness would be rather greater due to the lower conductivity. Still, for the strength of fields we're talking about here, the minimum thickness should still be trivial; conductive paint should do the job in fact, and once the humans verify that I can see a mass redecoration campaign to render all buildings mind-reading-proof. A fine metal mesh should suffice for the windows, the frequencies involved can't be that high.

It's just that aluminium is the cheapest and mostly widely available to modern society.

Indeed and people are probably playing it safe, a steel helmet might do the trick on its own but best to be sure.

Stuart wrote: Not to my knowledge; remember aluminum is less resistant to bullets than steel; it needs about three times the thickness of aluminum to give the same protection as steel. Most modern helmets are made out of kevlar and offer significantly better protection than steel so going to aluminum would be trading off protection for not very much. Much simpler just to line one's helmet with aluminum foil

I'm not disagreeing with you since steel is very easy to mass produce in comparison to any other metal, but if you allow aluminum alloys (Al-Cu for example) to still have anti-baldric protective characteristics you can get some tough protection.

Excellent work! Now enough with the cock-teasing and onto the EXPLOSIONS!


About Sodom and Gamorrah: God had the high ground and probably had his angels up on clouds throw down basins full of burning rocks.

If Heaven ever tries that shit again, we'll see how Gabriel on his cloud with his platter of charcoal likes an AMRAAM up his ass.

(It'd be deliciously ironic if the USAF pilot who shoots down the angel is one of them homosexual Top Gun aces - a sodomite, in other words! Crash and burn, Angel-boy!)

As for Egypt and the Firstborn: An Angel of Death Corps cloaking themselves and running around Cairo at night, killing people in their sleep? Smothering firstborn sons with pillows, even?

[R_H] wrote:What about using self-propelled/towed howitzer with proximity/infrared fuses to attack Harpie formations (economy of force and all that)?

It'll take a while to R & D 105 and 155 mm shells with such capabilities, then modify the howitzers to take advantage of such capabilities-- not to mention manufacture enough radars to let the gunners hit anything. It's probably easier to put the 88 mm, QF 3.7 inch AA, 90 mm, and/or 120 mm M1 guns back in production. (If these guns do get put back in production, I imagine a lot of WWII vets will volunteer for service again.)

Sidewinder wrote: It'll take a while to R & D 105 and 155 mm shells with such capabilities, then modify the howitzers to take advantage of such capabilities-- not to mention manufacture enough radars to let the gunners hit anything. It's probably easier to put the 88 mm, QF 3.7 inch AA, 90 mm, and/or 120 mm M1 guns back in production. (If these guns do get put back in production, I imagine a lot of WWII vets will volunteer for service again.)

I'm not talking about a radar proximity fuze, but an infrared fuze. Harpies don't seem to be much faster than helicopters, coupled with the fact that it would for firing at Harpie formations (not individual units) optical aiming should be adequate (IMO). What would be neat to use (direct fire) on the baldricks (both aerial and terrestrial) would be a "Mehrrohrkanone", as

Unlike a Gatling gun, the Meroka CIWS uses individual guns firing in salvos, or simultaneously, the barrels are purposely skewed in order to expand the impact area.

It'll take a while to develop infrared fuses that can target a biological creature WITHOUT getting distracted by the sun, other biological creatures (birds), campfires, etc.

Starglider wrote:[]

It's kind of nice to see this guy get a straight-up military challenge he can excel at, after the PR circus of the Iraq War where he could do his job perfectly and still be reviled back home. That said I'm still trying to work out how serious the character assassination of Secretary Gates was supposed to be.

I think its unrealistic for Petraeus to lead the forces against hell. He can't be the best combat commander available. This is the greatest war in human history and Petraeus is a glorified desk general who is known for sucking up to his superiors. His boss the head of CentCom William Fallon called Petraeus an ass kissing chicken shit. So far during the war in Iraq Petraeus has been blamed for such fiascos as the insurgents taking over Mosul right after he was in charge there, the failure to train the Iraqi Army and the failure to prevent the theft of the Iraqi arms procurement budget a few years ago. He's currently carrying water for the administration so that he can run for president in the future. This story presents Petraeus as if he was another Eisenhower or George Marshall but he's a joke.

Sean Mulligan wrote:I think its unrealistic for Petraeus to lead the forces against hell. He can't be the best combat commander available. This is the greatest war in human history and Petraeus is a glorified desk general who is known for sucking up to his superiors. His boss the head of CentCom William Fallon called Petraeus an ass kissing chicken shit. So far during the war in Iraq Petraeus has been blamed for such fiascos as the insurgents taking over Mosul right after he was in charge there, the failure to train the Iraqi Army and the failure to prevent the theft of the Iraqi arms procurement budget a few years ago. He's currently carrying water for the administration so that he can run for president in the future. This story presents Petraeus as if he was another Eisenhower or George Marshall but he's a joke.

Our opinions on that area differ. Dramatically.

Sidewinder wrote:It'll take a while to develop infrared fuses that can target a biological creature WITHOUT getting distracted by the sun, other biological creatures (birds), campfires, etc.

Hmm. Damn. How hot would the Harpies have to be so that the fuzes wouldn't get distracted by the sun etc? How expensive would such a sensitive infrared proximity fuze be?

Petraeus seems pretty sharp to me, and you don't get put in charge of America's largest ongoing military operation without knowing a thing or two. Plus, it would be unbelievably bad command-wise to pull out a commander once an enemy army is on the ground.

CaptainChewbacca wrote:Petraeus seems pretty sharp to me, and you don't get put in charge of America's largest ongoing military operation without knowing a thing or two. Plus, it would be unbelievably bad command-wise to pull out a commander once an enemy army is on the ground.

All of which is correct. I've known Petraeus for some years and he's very sharp, very skilled and an impressive military intellectual. That's why he got the job he did. You're also quite right on your last point, he's the commander on the ground and one doesn't change such commanders at the last moment when a battle is about to start.

By the way, the reported Fallon/Petraeus conflict never happened. It was invented by a blog called antiwar.com (gee, guess what their orienation is) and was picked up by other like-minded sites, then found its way into the media. The truth of the matter is that Fallon is Navy and Petraeus is Army and they have different ways of approaching/thinking about things. That's good, not bad.

However, this isn't the place to discuss the relative merits of General Petraeus.

[R_H] wrote: Hmm. Damn. How hot would the Harpies have to be so that the fuzes wouldn't get distracted by the sun etc? How expensive would such a sensitive infrared proximity fuze be?

We've already established that Harpies aren't hot enough to give a reliable lock for a heat-seeking missile, so an IR proximity fuse is nota good investment. Anyway, the existing radar proximity fuses would be perfectly adequate (as we saw in Part 1).

Stuart wrote: We've already established that Harpies aren't hot enough to give a reliable lock for a heat-seeking missile, so an IR proximity fuse is nota good investment. Anyway, the existing radar proximity fuses would be perfectly adequate (as we saw in Part 1).

Ah. Would a radar proximity fuze be cheap enough to be good enough to use as an anti-Harpie formation weapon?

[R_H] wrote:Ah. Would a radar proximity fuze be cheap enough to be good enough to use as an anti-Harpie formation weapon?

They have been since 1943.

Go Abigor! I mean, I want his army to get mashed (as much as Petraeus decides is appropriate), but live so that this isn't a complete squash!

Seriously, though, I'm liking how he's written, even if he's one of the only "strategic level" commanders shown thusfar on the OPFOR.

[R_H] wrote:Ah. Would a radar proximity fuze be cheap enough to be good enough to use as an anti-Harpie formation weapon?

They were mass-produced for 5" shells in World War 2.

Well if you claim Petraeus is a political hack, it doesn't matter since political hacks can lead armies and Bush is the biggest reciprocal cock-sucker ever (remember Harriet Miers?) If Patraeus isn't a political hack then big deal, the point is void.

So Stuart is right, it doesn't really matter who's in charge, as long as the humans are not all in line step. And they aren't, if Putin is thinking of carving out his own little empire with mob bosses in charge.

Humans obviously won't fight humans, but they won't necessarily help each other either. Stuart made a big deal of the Iranian General ceding command because it is a big deal. It probably will not be repeated. NATO in Afghanistan is the most complicated command structure ever, with no overall commander and forces refusing to help each other with even intel for fear of combat. An Allied command to invade Hell would be even more complicated, so I imagine the Americans will go it alone and so will the Russians, with the others tagging along but no unified command. The Message may have changed things, but it won't have destroyed nationalism.

KlavoHunter wrote:

[R_H] wrote:Ah. Would a radar proximity fuze be cheap enough to be good enough to use as an anti-Harpie formation weapon?

They were mass-produced for 5" shells in World War 2.

I wonder if any of those are still around, and if so could be adapted to 155mm shells. On this site there's a section about a radio proximity fuze that the US Army used at the end of WW2 for airbursts and anti-aircraft in with their howitzersWW2 fuzes:

This new smaller fuze, which was later termed the Mk 45, appeared to be small enough and simple enough to manufacture to meet the requirements of use in Army field artillery. Consequently the Army began to become quite interested in using this fuze for obtaining air bursts against personnel, etc. with howitzers in addition to use as an antiaircraft weapon. By September 1943 successful tests had been achieved with this fuze and it was started in production at the Crosley Corporation.

The first model being produced was a model for the Army 90mm antiaircraft gun. In addition, models were being developed for use in all various Army howitzers. Production facilities were being expanded in order to produce the enormous quantities required for such Army uses and quantity production eventually got underway on these various models of the Mark 45. Up until this time, because of security considerations, it had been decided that proximity fuzes should not be used where there was any chance of a dud falling on enemy territory and being recovered by the enemy.

CaptainChewbacca wrote:Petraeus seems pretty sharp to me, and you don't get put in charge of America's largest ongoing military operation without knowing a thing or two. Plus, it would be unbelievably bad command-wise to pull out a commander once an enemy army is on the ground.

You make a good point about the need for a continuity of command but I was just responding to Stargliders comment implying that Petraeus has been treated unfairly by the press. Here's an interesting article about Petraeus from the American Conservative magazine. http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_09_24/article2.html

[R_H] wrote:

KlavoHunter wrote:They were mass-produced for 5" shells in World War 2.

I wonder if any of those are still around, and if so could be adapted to 155mm shells.

Engage brain before opening mouth. The original design used vacuum tubes. As you may or may not have noticed, there have been several generations worth of progress in electronics since then. Under no circumstances could it be cheaper trying to rehabilitate museum pieces than simply produce new fuses with modern ICs (and most likely new shells to fit them to).

Sean Mulligan wrote:

CaptainChewbacca wrote:Petraeus seems pretty sharp to me, and you don't get put in charge of America's largest ongoing military operation without knowing a thing or two. Plus, it would be unbelievably bad command-wise to pull out a commander once an enemy army is on the ground.

You make a good point about the need for a continuity of command but I was just responding to Stargliders comment implying that Petraeus has been treated unfairly by the press. Here's an interesting article about Petraeus from the American Conservative magazine. http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_09_24/article2.html

Stuart already said this isn't the place to be discussing the merits of General Petraeus as a military commander or in any other capacity. I suggest you walk away.

CaptainChewbacca wrote:Stuart already said this isn't the place to be discussing the merits of General Petraeus as a military commander or in any other capacity. I suggest you walk away.

Chewie, you (nor I, for that matter) don't have the authority to request a user "walk away" from something - the moderators will handle it if they think it should be split off, sent to the HOS or whatnot. Should you have a complaint, feel free to ask the moderators or supermoderators in charge.

My appologies to you and to Sean. I got carried away.

Sean Mulligan wrote: You make a good point about the need for a continuity of command but I was just responding to Stargliders comment implying that Petraeus has been treated unfairly by the press. Here's an interesting article about Petraeus from the American Conservative magazine. http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_09_24/article2.html

Take a look at who wrote it. Hardly an unbiased or authoritative appraisal. The fact is that General Petraeus has a long history of achievement and has been regarded as one of the intellectual greats of the Army for the last decade at least - way preceeding Iraq.