twilight2000-digest Sunday, August 13 2000 Volume 1999 : Number 173 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: Silos Re: Silos Re: twilight2000-digest V1999 #172 Re: P-3 Orion Question Re: P-3 Orion Question Re: P-3 Orion Question re: silos Re: P-3 Orion Question Lots of boat questions!! RE: Lots of boat questions!! Re: Lots of boat questions!! Re: Lots of boat questions!! Re: Lots of boat questions!! Re: Lots of boat questions!! Re: Lots of boat questions!! RE: Lots of boat questions!! RE: Lots of boat questions!! Re: Lots of boat questions!! Re: Lots of boat questions!! RE: Lots of boat questions!! Re: Lots of boat questions!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 13:54:50 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Silos Walter Rebsch wrote: > > From: Peter Vieth > > > > I was driving down from Oregon to the SF Bay Area and I noticed that > > there were many silos along the road. Now I'm sure in a T2k setting > > these silos could be used as lookout towers for anyone watching trade > > moving down the road (regardless of whether they are used to store goods > > as well). Does anyone know what silos are made of? What sort of weapons > > would they withstand hits from? > > Are you talking about grain storage silos? I saw a building which consisted > of about 20 of them all attached together that was demolished. The vertical > storage shafts were made of reinforced concrete. The building I am talking > about was about 10-12 stories high. The shaft walls looked like they were > about 8" thick of heavily reinforced concrete near the top, tapering up to > about 1.5' thick near the base. Those are just guesses from driving by > while they used wrecking balls to slowly break it up. > > Unlike chimneys, which only have to support their weight and any wind loads, > grain storage silos have to resist the very powerful pressures of the > material they are storing. My guess is that they would be VERY strong. > Also, because they would be stronger than they need to be just to stand up, > you could probably blow out a pertty big hole in them and not have them > fall. But I'm just guessing. Also, a big pack of them (like the building I > saw) probably has thinner walls than one standing by itself. > > Walter Well these weren't as massive-- maybe 6-10 of them in two lines with a small building on top, and I'm guessing that they were probably 4 to 6 stories tall. - -- Peter Vieth | fitek@ix.netcom.com | http://sanitarium.scizzors.net *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 18:47:50 -0700 (PDT) From: graebarde Subject: Re: Silos > > > I was driving down from Oregon to the SF Bay Area and > I noticed that > > > there were many silos along the road. Now I'm sure in > a T2k setting > > > these silos could be used as lookout towers for > anyone watching trade > > > moving down the road (regardless of whether they are > used to store goods > > > as well). Does anyone know what silos are made of? > What sort of weapons > > > would they withstand hits from? Grain storage "silos" or elevators are usually steel reinforced concrete today, but some of the smaller ones are all metal. Farm "silos" are of varying type material from wood to steel to concrete. As observation posts they are the tallest structures on the prairies and in most ag communities. What will one withstand.. I would imagine the reinforced concrete would withstand a MBT maingun round for a time anyway. The galvanized steel can be punched by .22 LR at close ranges. One consideration in the grain elevator atmosphere is grain dust. This is highly explosive and will rip the roof off the concrete structure like nothing. The reason they have manditory dust collectors on them now. The older wooden structures will blow and burn for days without alot of fire fighting equipment on hand. The small buildings on top of the strutures were probably the equipment shacks to protect electric motors and such from the elements. daFORD __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com/ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 21:50:06 EDT From: GDWGAMES@aol.com Subject: Re: twilight2000-digest V1999 #172 In a message dated 10-Aug-00 3:30:45 PM Central Daylight Time, owner-twilight2000-digest@lists.imagiconline.com writes: > I remember some of the infantry guys were really outstanding with the > M203's. They didn't bother with the sights half the time. Those guys would > be shooting the practice grenades through windows 100m away like Michael > Jordan doing a jump shot. Anybody remember the M79 scene in _Appocalypse Now_? Night action -- blooper gunner hits a VC in one shot after listening to him yell "Hey, GI, you die!" and similar stuff for a minute or so -- gets the range purely by sound. Great scene... LKW *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 22:05:20 -0500 From: Craig Gulledge Subject: Re: P-3 Orion Question Peter Vieth wrote: > > > > By the way, which two engines work > I'm not sure, first guess would say the inboard engines. Reason I'm asking, characters are now in possession of one, but one engine has been damaged. I'm preparing for the "what if we disabled/ removed/whatever the damaged engine and it's opposite, can we fly? The plane has been stripped down as much as possible without violating it's structural integrity. BTW, this is how the characters got back, they ended up in the Azores, ran into a crew with a P-3, cut a deal with the French occupation forces, and got enough gas to get home. The plane has been subsequently damaged, and the characters will want to maintain this (highly) valuable piece of property. Also, I'm not as sure about the "if it'll cruise one two it'll take off on two". keeping something airborne is (IIRC) a lot easier than getting it off the ground, I'm thinking about using GURPS Vehicles took put together an aircraft with the same gross characteristics, and seeing if it'll take off with two turboprops producing the power equivalent. I'll let you all know. - -- Craig S. Gulledge "If you hear a redneck exclaim, "Hey, y'all, watch this!" Stay out of his way. These are likely the last words he will ever say." - - Rule #8 from "Advice for Moving to Texas"- *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 01:38:25 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: P-3 Orion Question At 10:05 PM 8/10/00 -0500, Craig Gulledge wrote: > > >Peter Vieth wrote: > >> >> >> >> By the way, which two engines work >> > >I'm not sure, first guess would say the inboard engines. >Reason I'm asking, characters are now in possession of one, but one >engine has been damaged. I'm preparing for the "what if we disabled/ >removed/whatever the damaged engine and it's opposite, can we fly? I'd run it on three engines (obviously, leaving in the damaged engine as ballast to balane the plane)--is there a technical reason you can't do this? This will introduce some yaw, but you can compensate for that with the rudder (this adds drag, so you might cut to two engines for cruising and reduce fuel expenditure, but it's good for takeoff), and you can minimize the yaw by moving the bad engine to one of the inboard positions (less torque that way from the imbalance between the good and bad engine). [Snip.] > >Also, I'm not as sure about the "if it'll cruise one two it'll take off on two". >keeping something airborne is (IIRC) a lot easier than getting it off the >ground.... No, it's not really. Cruising at a particular altitude requires that lift exactly equals weight. Taking off requires that lift is higher than weight--in theory, even if it's infnitesimally higher, that's enough for the plane to lift off the ground--obviously though you want a bigger margin than that, because the bigger the difference, the faster you climb once you've reached stall speed--tying off a dry lake bed, that wouldn't make much difference, but taking off from most airports you'd want to climb fairly quickly to avoid nearby buildings and trees. There are couple of caveats to the above. First, air closer to the ground is denser, and so it's easier to generate lift closer to the ground (there's also more drag, so it's not the best place to cruise, but it is a a good place to take off); on the other hand, the greater drag at ground level means that engines have to work harder to get to a certain speed. Which effect is more important at any given altitude depends on the exact design of a given plane type, though probably they're going to tend to wash out. The other caveat is that you still have to reach your stall (minimum) speed to take off--if two engines can maintain the stall speed, they can reach it, eventually, but it will require a longer runway--maybe a MUCH longer runway. A final caveat, which another poster pointed out, is that the ability to cruise on two engines might assume that you've already burned some of your fuel in the climb, and therefore that you're at lower than full weight--if you're taking off with a full load of fuel, you might want to lighten up the payload (but you said the PC's already did that). One thing you've got going for you here is that all planes are equipped with flaps. Flaps in effect increase the camber (curvature) of the wing, which increase both the lift and the drag produced by the wing. Because they increase lift, they're used on take-off and landing to reduce the stall speed (so that you can take off or land in as short a distance as possible), but because they produce extra drag, they're not normalloy used for cruising flight. That means that if the thing is capable of cruising with two engines, it's probably doing so with the flaps up (undeployed), and that if you put the flaps down, you'll get the extra lift you need for a take-off. If you've landed at the main airport in the Azores, you can probably get this thing off the ground, because you'll be on a runway designed for 747's, and a P-3 is a lot smaller than a 747, and hence has a higher thrust-to-weight ratio and a shorter takeoff roll. >...I'm thinking about using GURPS Vehicles took put together >an aircraft with the same gross characteristics, and seeing if it'll take off >with two turboprops producing the power equivalent. I'll >let you all know. > That can't hurt, but keep in mind that the numbers in GURPS vehicles are generic--the actual performance stats of the P-3 will be more exact. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 01:38:46 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: P-3 Orion Question Craig Gulledge wrote: snipped What I want to know is where do they plan to land? Also note that if they shut down an engine like Scott Orr recommends they probably wont be able to turn it back on again (its still a good idea). - -- Peter Vieth | fitek@ix.netcom.com | http://sanitarium.scizzors.net *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 10:19:41 -0600 From: smoore@digcom.com Subject: re: silos We used a grain elevator in one of our games. I and another player used to work at different "grain storage facility" and compared notes to build a generic setting. Most silos built before, say 1980 (rough guess) were made of reinforced concrete. Most had some kind of structure on top, be it an expanded roof made of wood, or a reinforced concrete building, to protect the conveyors and motors that moved the grain into the bin. The more recently built bins are constructed of a heavy metal frame covered with metal panels. These metal panels wont withstand much, but the frame will take a lot of punishment. In most locations the bins would make excellent watchtowers or snipers positions, because of the height. Grain dust fires would be a real problem, if grain was still stored in them, We were warned that the spark from a shovel against a metal rung on the ladder could cause an explosion. The other threat is "drowning" in the grain, a worker at a nearby facility died this way when the grain he was shoveling started sliding and covered him before he could get out. Again, that is assuming that there is any grain left in the bins, which would be doubtful in a t2k scenario. Most older silos are built on concrete bases, but at an elevator there are tunnels under the bins to remove the grain. these are usually made of reinforced concrete and are able to withstand the weight of thousands of tons of grain. Our game centered around a small deserted town, with a grain elevator still mostly full of corn and wheat. Since there was very little available food in the area this became a primary target of most armed groups. Our unit used the elevator as a base of operations and lookout positions, but tried to keep most of the fighting away, to avoid fires. When the combat reached the elevator it mostly turned to hand to hand, as nobody wanted to risk losing the grain. Hope this helps, I might still have some of the maps and such if anyone is interested and not in to much of a hurry. 1_ Voice Mail Guru Digital Communications 217-442-3800, Ext. 305 Fax 217-442-0974 D- _- *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 10:20:18 AKDT From: "Daniel G" Subject: Re: P-3 Orion Question I'm not sure if this is true. The USCG runs their c-130s on two engines sometimes, and I'm pretty sure they can turn them back on. Also, with a turbojet engine (at least on the Starfighter) If you put the plane into a dive, the air turn the turbine blades enough to start the engine. You could probably do this on a prop by adjusting the pitch to make the propellor spin fast enough to turn over the magnetos. - -Daniel >From: Peter Vieth >Reply-To: twilight2000@lists.imagiconline.com >To: twilight2000@lists.imagiconline.com >Subject: Re: P-3 Orion Question >Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 01:38:46 -0700 > >Craig Gulledge wrote: >snipped > >What I want to know is where do they plan to land? Also note that if they >shut down >an engine like Scott Orr recommends they probably wont be able to turn it >back on >again (its still a good idea). > >-- >Peter Vieth | fitek@ix.netcom.com | http://sanitarium.scizzors.net > > >*************************************************************************** >To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com >with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 21:31:36 -0700 From: "Andrew Kolb" Subject: Lots of boat questions!! This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C004A4.B1729CC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Lets say you have a river tug and a couple of barges. The tug has = waterline armor of 2 and the barge has waterline armor as 1. Can you, = with the right equipment, cut up the barge and apply a "belt" around the = tug to give it water line armor of 3?=20 How about cutting up two barges and giving the tug water line of 3 and = hull of 3 and use the left over pieces to give the tug superstructure = armor of 2?=20 Would two tons be a good weight for each barges worth of cut up armor? Could you mount a 122mm gun on the fore and aft decks? Or better yet how = about a pair of M40A2 106mm Recoilless rifles on each end? Thanks=20 Andrew - ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C004A4.B1729CC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Lets say you have a river tug and a couple of barges. The tug has = waterline=20 armor of 2 and the barge has waterline armor as 1. Can you, with the = right=20 equipment, cut up the barge and apply a "belt" around the tug = to give=20 it water line armor of 3? How about cutting up two barges and giving the tug water line of 3 = and hull=20 of 3 and use the left over pieces to give the tug superstructure armor = of 2?=20 Would two tons be a good weight for each barges worth of cut up = armor? Could you mount a 122mm gun on the fore and aft decks? Or better yet = how=20 about a pair of M40A2 106mm Recoilless rifles on each end? Thanks Andrew - ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C004A4.B1729CC0-- *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 23:15:07 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: Lots of boat questions!! >From: Andrew Kolb > >Lets say you have a river tug and a couple of barges. The tug has waterline armor of 2 and >the barge has waterline armor as 1. Can you, with the right equipment, cut up the barge >and apply a "belt" around the tug to give it water line armor of 3? > >How about cutting up two barges and giving the tug water line of 3 and hull of 3 and use >the left over pieces to give the tug superstructure armor of 2? > >Would two tons be a good weight for each barges worth of cut up armor? > >Could you mount a 122mm gun on the fore and aft decks? Or better yet how about a pair of >M40A2 106mm Recoilless rifles on each end? You know, bottled oxygen and acetylene can't be all that cheap and plentiful in T2K, is it? And if I ever heard a use where adding sandbags might be a decent idea, this application must surely beat the hair brained idea of putting it on tanks ... :) Why on earth would you want to armor a barge? All the ones I've ever seen don't even have motors. You could build a wonderful sandbag bunker on a barge much easier than trying to find the mother of all welding supply shops and spending a year cutting and welding ... I guess I didn't really answer your questions. My guess is that a barge could be cut up to armor a tug. But since a barge is probably about 4 or 5 times bigger than a typical tug, it probably wouldn't work well in reverse. I don't have any idea on the barge material weight or the space requirements of the guns. Armoring the superstructure would take a lot of fitting work if you still wanted windows and doors. And don't overload the boat or it'll sink! Why don't you just go down to San Jacinto park near Galveston, Texas and get the ol' Battleship Texas going again? It's got about 2 feet of armor plate around it! They got an old destroyer and a sub there too. Too bad the USS Texas has been a museum since 1948 and would require a MAJOR miracle to get working again ... but if you did ... Walter *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 00:06:05 -0700 From: "Andrew Kolb" Subject: Re: Lots of boat questions!! - -----Original Message----- From: Walter Rebsch To: twilight2000@lists.imagiconline.com Date: Saturday, August 12, 2000 9:36 PM Subject: RE: Lots of boat questions!! > > >You know, bottled oxygen and acetylene can't be all that cheap and plentiful >in T2K, is it? You can use an arc welder to cut with but it would be a painfully slow process. But to be honest I apparently hadn't thought it all out first. >Armoring the superstructure would take a lot of fitting work >if you still wanted windows and doors. see the sentence above that starts with "But to be" >Why don't you just go down to San Jacinto park near Galveston, Texas and get >the ol' Battleship Texas going again? It's got about 2 feet of armor plate >around it! They got an old destroyer and a sub there too. Too bad the USS >Texas has been a museum since 1948 and would require a MAJOR miracle to get >working again ... but if you did ... Could you imagine the fuel consumption on that thing!!!!!!!!!! It would need two crews, one to operate it and one to stay on shore and run the mother of all stills!!! Andrew *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 12:44:44 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: Lots of boat questions!! Lets say you have a river tug and a couple of barges. The tug has waterline armor of 2 and the barge has waterline armor as 1. Can you, with the right equipment, cut up the barge and apply a "belt" around the tug to give it water line armor of 3? How about cutting up two barges and giving the tug water line of 3 and hull of 3 and use the left over pieces to give the tug superstructure armor of 2? Would two tons be a good weight for each barges worth of cut up armor? Could you mount a 122mm gun on the fore and aft decks? Or better yet how about a pair of M40A2 106mm Recoilless rifles on each end? Jim: I don't think a 122mm is going to be a good idea for the Tug, in the original rules (Pirates of the Vistula) there was a limit of 800kg on the fore and aft decks. This means you can't even mount the ZSU-2 23mm autocannons on the decks (We strengthened our tug to take one) but the 122mm is probably out. The barge is great though, I wouldn't get rid of it. Although it slows you down you can put *anything* on it, including 105mm howitzers! A great idea is a quad .50cal mount, home built or the proper M45/55 Maxson mount, ammo is dirt cheap and without the trailer it's about 800kg. Otherwise, stick with your great idea of the RCLs, you can make the ammo and it's a hardcore weapon (spectacular too!) You might get the 122mm on the barge, we made our barge into a fortress, the campaign wound down because the tug was too hardcore! Armour is easy to come by, I'd sandbag and armour your tug with cast off bits and keep the barges in reserve, you'll probably need them someday and the tug can push two. For a truely armoured barge, get the turrets of LAVs, APCs and IFVs and weld them into a mini battleship! (Don't forget a 120mm mortar like they had in Vietnam either!) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 12:40:08 -0500 From: Rob Barnes Subject: Re: Lots of boat questions!! Wherever you get the armoring plates from, you can certainly add protection to the tug. HOWEVER, adding a lot of weight and bulk will severly impact the maneuverability and speed of the tug, as well as possibly increasing the draft to the point where it can't navigate safely, which is usually a big factor on most rivers. The tug can be protected against just small arms (up to 20mm, say) or heavy weapons. The armoring you describe is maybe enough to withstand large caliber hits, but the underlying structure of the tug is not designed to absorb that sort of impact. While the armor might not get penetrated, the interior of the hull would probably be pretty messed up by the transmitted shock unless you used something like sandbags or old tires as a buffer. It might be better to be a fast moving target against those types of weapons and hope not to get hit. On the other hand, protection against smaller caliber weapons can be done very easily without impacting the tug's performance. If you want a floating fortress, I'd suggest the barge would be the better choice. Andrew Kolb wrote: > Lets say you have a river tug and a couple of barges. The tug has > waterline armor of 2 and the barge has waterline armor as 1. Can you, > with the right equipment, cut up the barge and apply a "belt" around > the tug to give it water line armor of 3? > > How about cutting up two barges and giving the tug water line of 3 and > hull of 3 and use the left over pieces to give the tug superstructure > armor of 2? > > Would two tons be a good weight for each barges worth of cut up armor? > > Could you mount a 122mm gun on the fore and aft decks? Or better yet > how about a pair of M40A2 106mm Recoilless rifles on each end? > > > > Thanks > > Andrew *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 21:25:14 GMT From: "Brandon Cope" Subject: Re: Lots of boat questions!! >From: "Andrew Kolb" > > >Could you mount a 122mm gun on the fore and aft decks? Or better yet how >about a pair of M40A2 106mm Recoilless rifles on each end? Depends on the weight of the ship for the 122mm guns. The M40A2 could be put on a rowboat if it could tkae the weight. The problem is that your arcs are fire are limted to the two sides unless you set up a fireproof screen between the gun and superstructure. A generous and sadistic GM, Brandon Cope http://www.geocities.com/copeab ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 07:52:10 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: Lots of boat questions!! >>Could you mount a 122mm gun on the fore and aft decks? Or better yet how >>about a pair of M40A2 106mm Recoilless rifles on each end? > >Depends on the weight of the ship for the 122mm guns. > >The M40A2 could be put on a rowboat if it could tkae the weight. The problem >is that your arcs are fire are limted to the two sides unless you set up a >fireproof screen between the gun and superstructure. >Brandon Cope We played our game in Poland, realistically we just mounted sandbag armour and revetted the actual firing positions with plating. The tug was more than powerful enough in it's own right already, mounting two KPVs in wing sponsons, but with the addition of two AGS-17's it's almost unstoppable! We had a bit of trouble with a ZSU-2 23mm twin autocannon but after an infantry action we added it to our forward hull position and eventually the quad fifty at the rear made it a terror. If I was to start from scratch, I'd use the same sandbag armour again (see the Steve McQueen movie 'The Sand Pebbles' for inspiration), move the two KPV's forward into a low armoured mount and pack on the AGS-17's. A battery of those really kick arse on shore positions. The Barge is a godsend, it allows you to armour up the tug because it draws more water than it. It also allows you to bring your industries with you, as well as some light armour for scouting. (We managed a BTR, a Scorpion and a Sheridan) and is the logical place for mortar batteries. Walter brought up a good comment on Acetylene, an important resource for fabrication. I know it can be made from carbide and water, and there's carbide deposits around in Europe. Does anyone know the actual method of deriving acetylene? Don't forget, to weld an aluminium hull you need a Mig welder! Jim *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 18:08:15 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: Lots of boat questions!! > From: Brandon Cope > > >From: "Andrew Kolb" > > > >Could you mount a 122mm gun on the fore and aft decks? Or better yet how > >about a pair of M40A2 106mm Recoilless rifles on each end? > > Depends on the weight of the ship for the 122mm guns. I was just curious about the recoil forces generated by a D-30 122mm Howitzer. Playing around with my calculator, it looks to me like it would generate about 3000 kg of recoil force for about half a second (VERY rough estimate). It has 3 "legs" which are about 4 meters long each to support the gun. If you removed (or shortened) those legs and bolted it to the deck, even if it didn't tear itself loose, you might capsize the boat if you shot a broadside. Of course you could always add some outriggers for stability when shooting. Also, you probably won't have a fire control system to compensate for the pitch and roll of the ship. So you're going to be back to mid 19th century naval gun accuracy. But on a somewhat calm river, I guess it won't be too bad for the first shot ... Walter *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 18:08:19 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: Lots of boat questions!! > From: Jim & Peta Lawrie > > Walter brought up a good comment on Acetylene, an important > resource for > fabrication. I know it can be made from carbide and water, and there's > carbide deposits around in Europe. Does anyone know the actual method of > deriving acetylene? Don't forget, to weld an aluminium hull you need a Mig > welder! > Jim Info on acetylene: http://www.weldingsupply.net/acetylen.htm Aluminum welding can actually be done with using either Mig, Tig or Arc welders. For a Mig welder you need CO2 gas and the proper wire. For Tig you need Argon gas and the proper welding rods. And for Arc you need the proper welding rods. Arc welding aluminum is actually a really poor way of welding that metal and the proper rods are very uncommon because it's rarely done. Also, you need to pre-heat the aluminum to about 300 degrees when Arc welding it. Tig is the nicest and most accurate. Mig works similiar to Tig, except that its faster (and slightly less accurate). Probably the best way to cut metal would be with a plasma cutter. They are pretty cheap and rather common in industry and only need electricty and compressed air to run. Oxy/Acetylene welding/cutting is used primarily because it's fast, cheap and easy. Not because it's very high quality. If you don't have acetylene you can use propane instead, but it doesn't burn as hot so you end up working slower. Also, if your going to try to mount an aluminum turret on a steel boat, you have to use a dielectic mounting otherwise it'll corrode very quickly. The class of ship that was struck by an Iranian missle in the Persian Gulf (The Stark?) was a boat that had a steel hull and an aluminum superstructure. The US Navy was really proud of the special metal they came up with that allowed them to do that. That special metal (I can't remember what it was) was used between the aluminum and steel to prevent galvanic currents from corroding the joints. Anyway, just FYI for those of you that like realism. Walter *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 15:16:32 AKDT From: "Daniel G" Subject: Re: Lots of boat questions!! >From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" >Reply-To: twilight2000@lists.imagiconline.com >To: >Subject: Re: Lots of boat questions!! >Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 07:52:10 +1000 > > >>Could you mount a 122mm gun on the fore and aft decks? Or better yet how > >>about a pair of M40A2 106mm Recoilless rifles on each end? > > > >Depends on the weight of the ship for the 122mm guns. > > > >The M40A2 could be put on a rowboat if it could tkae the weight. The >problem > >is that your arcs are fire are limted to the two sides unless you set up >a > >fireproof screen between the gun and superstructure. > > >Brandon Cope > When we played Pirates of the Vistula, we used the tug and one barge. The tug was sandbagged and mounted three DSHKs on the rear superstructure. The fantail held a trailer mounted autocannon. On the front of the barge we built a sandbagged heavy mortar position raised enough to allow self-observed fire (we didn't have an FO). The the tug and portions of the barge near fighting positions were ringed with concussion grenades on trip lines. On the barge, other than by the mortar, we used frag grenades. The grenades helped protect against mortars. We would have liked to have more heavy gear, but we started the game light. We had only four characters and one mule. For heavy weaponry, we had M203s and one M60. Many ideas for waterborne weaponry can be taken from the PT boat. Has anyone tried nebelwerfer-style barrage rockets? Not too accurate, but they pack a punch. Also, you could strip the FC package off a ZSU or Sgt. York. This gives you the same punch with less weight. -Daniel ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 23:27:33 GMT From: "Brandon Cope" Subject: Re: Lots of boat questions!! >From: "Daniel G" > Many ideas for waterborne weaponry can be taken from the PT boat. Has >anyone tried nebelwerfer-style barrage rockets? Not too accurate, but they >pack a punch. Also, you could strip the FC package off a ZSU or Sgt. York. >This gives you the same punch with less weight. What about an M167 taken off it's trailer? (Or should that me the M163)? Main problem is ammo consumption ... A generous and sadistic GM, Brandon Cope http://www.geocities.com/copeab ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 19:47:38 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: RE: Lots of boat questions!! At 06:08 PM 8/13/00 -0500, Walter Rebsch wrote: >Also, if your going to try to mount an aluminum turret on a steel boat, you >have to use a dielectic mounting otherwise it'll corrode very quickly. The >class of ship that was struck by an Iranian missle in the Persian Gulf (The >Stark?) was a boat that had a steel hull and an aluminum superstructure. >The US Navy was really proud of the special metal they came up with that >allowed them to do that. That special metal (I can't remember what it was) >was used between the aluminum and steel to prevent galvanic currents from >corroding the joints. Anyway, just FYI for those of you that like realism. > The _Stark_ is an "O.H. Perry"-class FFG. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 19:50:34 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Lots of boat questions!! At 03:16 PM 8/13/00 AKDT, Daniel G wrote: > > When we played Pirates of the Vistula, we used the tug and one barge. The >tug was sandbagged and mounted three DSHKs on the rear superstructure. The >fantail held a trailer mounted autocannon. On the front of the barge we >built a sandbagged heavy mortar position raised enough to allow >self-observed fire (we didn't have an FO). The the tug and portions of the >barge near fighting positions were ringed with concussion grenades on trip >lines. On the barge, other than by the mortar, we used frag grenades. The >grenades helped protect against mortars. We would have liked to have more >heavy gear, but we started the game light. We had only four characters and >one mule. For heavy weaponry, we had M203s and one M60. I don't understand about the grenades: how did they protect against mortars? Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1999 #173 *************************************