Re: [GZG] [SG] Cracking Eggs with a Sledgehammer, was Power Armour with Shotguns

[Brian B <brianbinor@xxxxxxxxx>]

Point taken.

Again, I myself still prefer the option of using manouver thrusters on
the suits themselves to counteract recoil.

On 10/10/05, Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
>
> > >>Another possibility is recoilless guns that shoot out a cloud of gas or
> > >>dust backwards. The obvious problem of endangering the shooter should not
> > >>be an issue for PA.
> > >
> > >It's not so much a problem for the *shooter* as for anyone standing
> > >*behind* the shooter. Recoilless guns and countermass weapons are
> > > distinctly bad ideas if there's any risk whatsoever that you'll have to
> > > fight in corridors :-/
> >
> >My original comment still applies, that suited boarders won't be *AS*
> >affected by this as movern infantry.
>
> They wouldn't be *as* affected, in the sense that they (probably) won't be
> *killed* by standing in the backblast area.
>
> They would still run a very serious risk of having most of their
> peripherals scrubbed off their suits and any surfaces intended to be
> transparent (face plates, camera lenses, lightly-armoured weapons etc.)
> turned opaque by a myriad of tiny pock-marks, effectively rendering them
> both deaf and blind... which takes them out of the fight just as
> effectively as actually killing them would.
>
> IOW, the above comment that it "would not be an issue" for them is IMO true
> only for a very carefully selected value of "an issue" :-/
>
> Later,
>
> Oerjan
> oerjan.ariander@xxxxxxxxx
>
> "Life is like a sewer.
>   What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
> -Hen3ry
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gzg-l mailing list
> Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l