Re: [GZG] [SG] Cracking Eggs with a Sledgehammer, was Power Armour with Shotguns
From: Brian B <brianbinor@g...>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:00:01 -0700
Subject: Re: [GZG] [SG] Cracking Eggs with a Sledgehammer, was Power Armour with Shotguns
Again, I myself still prefer the option of using manouver thrusters on
the suits themselves to counteract recoil.
On 10/10/05, Oerjan Ariander <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> > >>Another possibility is recoilless guns that shoot out a cloud of
> > >>dust backwards. The obvious problem of endangering the shooter
> > >>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
> > > 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)
> *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
> turned opaque by a myriad of tiny pock-marks, effectively rendering
> 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
> only for a very carefully selected value of "an issue" :-/
> "Life is like a sewer.
> What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
> Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l mailing list