Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Maxim_inc]

A grenade specifically made to be fired from a rifle.
A bullet made to be simpler to trigger by altering the ignition mechanism.

Of the two, which is more complex to pull off? It may not be over-engineered, but it does sound strange to me. It doesn't really solve the bullet cost for our pistols and MGs, but is it's own thing. Going from explosive bullet to generic grenade launcher sized for a rifle barrel.

Are you inherently misunderstanding what a rifle grenade is on purpose Tric? A rifle grenade is a grenade that is launched from the end of a rifle like a potato from a potato cannon. There's no extreme engineering or crazy production. Its literally producing a metal cup that sits over the muzzle of a NORMAL BULLET FIRING RIFLE that holds the grenade so it can be launched from the gas pressure of firing a blank cartridge. When you are not firing a rifle grenade you just take the cup off and shoot normal bullets through it till some hardpoint gets in your way you need to throw a grenade at again.

[TricMagic]

And what's the range on it?
Simple fact is exploding bullet has more impact at range than a grenade. Making it cheaper to deploy in any way will increase effectiveness across the board. Instead of firing a grenade, fire an exploding bullet instead before they reach. Grenades are best at close quarters anyway, especially with the wide open plains we currently fight in. sorry if this sounds inflammatory, but my voting decision is to make the bullet cheaper, not make something new from the old.

[FallacyofUrist]

Can't we just, fix the exploding bullets instead of trying to do something completely new? We don't need to go with ambitious revisions, that's what designs are for.

Truth be told I also disliked just how long the proposal was. Five long paragraphs for a revision probably means it's supposed to be a design... but that feeling is probably just my opinion, there are situations where complex descriptions work better.

[Maxim_inc]

And what's the range on it?

Farther than a man can throw a normal grenade, and with an overpressured blank (the standard issue for all rifle grenades even irl) it can be thrown hundreds of meters- not to mention the fact that we're throwing grenades that are smaller and weigh less than the large and bulky rifle grenades used most often irl. We're tossing a payload that weighs in single digit ounces rather than the 20-30+ ounce average. These are smaller grenades that can be carried more readily and in larger number compared to the rifle grenades that were close to mortar shells in side that needed tons of power and refinement to launcher and only a handful capable of being carried by a single soldier.

These also give our soldiers ready indirect fire capability since its just as easy to arc a rifle grenade in close quarters as it would be to wait for a mortar to be brought up, even a light knee mortar. In fact this is pretty much giving our soldiers a knee mortar as part of their rifle kit. The attachment to the rifle again just being a simple to produce cup sized to fit the rifle grenade and sit over the muzzle of the barrel via being attached at the bayonet lug. No complex screw, threads or fittings. Just mount it over the barrel, disable the gas system and fire away until the target is gone or you're out of grenades. Then just take it off the lug, twist the screw to put the gas system back on and return to firing normal bullets.

[TricMagic]

Kay. But does that help the machine gun fire more explosive bullets? I'm not saying a grenade launcher is a bad idea. Just that making the bullets cheaper would be more effective right now. If we could ease the production of the explosive, that would also make a better bullet and eventual grenade.

[Maxim_inc]

Kay. But does that help the machine gun fire more explosive bullets? I'm not saying a grenade launcher is a bad idea. Just that making the bullets cheaper would be more effective right now. If we could ease the production of the explosive, that would also make a better bullet and eventual grenade.

Well the thing you're voting for explicitly doesn't improve the machine gun shells, because the complex detonation system is a problem only for the rifle bullets. The shells for the machine gun suffer from using a large amount of expensive fulminated mercury and the precision needed to keep it stable, but on the scale of cost being Very Expensive means it can be issued to locations where its needed for uses through its sparse availability.

What the rifle grenades are doing is taking this and simplifying it by making it use a different detonation method and a more stable and less costly payload giving our common soldiers a much cheaper self service ability to deliver explosives and with the added effect of a potential trickle back effect for both the rifle and the machinegun if the rolls work out well enough.

Also.... in wide open plains a grenade is deadlier than a single bullet because there's no cover to stop a single grenade from sending shrapnel in every direction killing an entire squad than just a single soldier? And in trenches and rough terrain a grenade can be arced over behind cover where a bullet that explodes on contact can't be fired through?

[TricMagic]

I' be perfectly willing to vote for anything else that reduces their cost. But that same cost of manufacturing will apply to grenades using the same source. They might be VE Grenades, equipped to only a small number of soldiers. Not very cost-effective.

I am fully willing to support a design to make manufacturing the ammo easier and/or cheaper. That's the base of my vote and the revision I proposed. Red Shells are also stated to be a level cheaper, so if we get VE bullets, that's E Red Shells. (At this point I am repeating myself. Do you see the math involved in my logic? Cause that's my reasoning. Grenades don't affect production cost, and a lower range.)

Also.... in wide open plains a grenade is deadlier than a single bullet because there's no cover to stop a single grenade from sending shrapnel in every direction killing an entire squad than just a single soldier?

This is also.. I suppose misconstruction of an argument? Grenades are deadly in enclosed spaces. They're deadly in open spaces. If you're right next to them, they are deadly. The explosion will cause more damage than the fragments. At farther ranges, effectiveness tends to drop off, with the only death-dealing being fragmentation. Which is still deadly. The deadliness of grenades is not in question. I just find Expensive Red Shells to be a more effective add to our arsenal, when combined with VE "war crime" exploding bullets equipped to our forces. It's a morale hitter when that gunman you're closing in on could just blast off a leg, arm, or kill you messily. Grenade launchers are effective, but also generic. They're effective, deadly, and common in the military. They don't provide anything surprising.

[Maxim_inc]

I' be perfectly willing to vote for anything else that reduces their cost. But that same cost of manufacturing will apply to grenades using the same source. They might be VE Grenades, equipped to only a small number of soldiers. Not very cost-effective.

I am fully willing to support a design to make manufacturing the ammo easier and/or cheaper. That's the base of my vote and the revision I proposed. Red Shells are also stated to be a level cheaper, so if we get VE bullets, that's E Red Shells. (At this point I am repeating myself. Do you see the math involved in my logic? Cause that's my reasoning. Grenades don't affect production cost, and a lower range.)

Also.... in wide open plains a grenade is deadlier than a single bullet because there's no cover to stop a single grenade from sending shrapnel in every direction killing an entire squad than just a single soldier?

This is also.. I suppose misconstruction of an argument? Grenades are deadly in enclosed spaces. They're deadly in open spaces. If you're right next to them, they are deadly. The explosion will cause more damage than the fragments. At farther ranges, effectiveness tends to drop off, with the only death-dealing being fragmentation. Which is still deadly. The deadliness of grenades is not in question. I just find Expensive Red Shells to be a more effective add to our arsenal, when combined with VE "war crime" exploding bullets equipped to our forces. It's a morale hitter when that gunman you're closing in on could just blast off a leg, arm, or kill you messily. Grenade launchers are effective, but also generic. They're effective, deadly, and common in the military. They don't provide anything surprising.

1. These cut out a large portion of the manufacturing process of the grenade itself in firing solely the slug reducing the production, a soldier only needs a cheap launcher cup made once and then issued to him.

2. Where do you think voting on a revision that does not effect problems with the red shells will make it cheaper? Please honestly explain that. Furthermore the rifle grenade is using a cheaper and simpler process than the red shells in the first place which means they can be distributed to more people and have the potential trickle back to the red shells and rifle bullets. And these can be fired very easily within the minimum and mid range of the red shells.

3. I'm not going to answer this last part because I have nothing kind to say about this at the moment.

[TricMagic]

2: A good roll will fulfill the stated objective. Unless MoP says it's completely ridiculous to think that. I will literally take anything that makes it cheaper to deploy. That's my stance this revision. People seem to agree on making it cheaper given the votes? Some people want grenades, some want cheaper ammo.

[Maxim_inc]

2: A good roll will fulfill the stated objective. Unless MoP says it's completely ridiculous to think that. I will literally take anything that makes it cheaper to deploy. That's my stance this revision. People seem to agree on making it cheaper given the votes? Some people want grenades, some want cheaper ammo.

Okay so you're hedging this on that a good roll will fix the completely unrelated problem of the red shell by GM magic? In that logic a good roll on a rifle grenade will net us a rifle grenade, a cheaper exploding bullet and a cheaper red shell. That's a better net positive than "Make bullet cheaper".

[TricMagic]

It does get an Easy modifier at least. Which is what I'd be betting on. Maybe Very Easy?

[m1895]

2: A good roll will fulfill the stated objective. Unless MoP says it's completely ridiculous to think that. I will literally take anything that makes it cheaper to deploy. That's my stance this revision. People seem to agree on making it cheaper given the votes? Some people want grenades, some want cheaper ammo.

Okay so you're hedging this on that a good roll will fix the completely unrelated problem of the red shell by GM magic? In that logic a good roll on a rifle grenade will net us a rifle grenade, a cheaper exploding bullet and a cheaper red shell. That's a better net positive than "Make bullet cheaper".

Max, The rev explicitly states that it affects "bullets and shells alike" which it may well do (if to lesser effect for the shells,) since the spring wasn't explicitly removed. Now you could counter that obviously our people weren't stupid enough to leave the springs in while simplifying the rounds, but they made an automatic shotgun that fires 45 rounds per minute.

[Maxim_inc]

2: A good roll will fulfill the stated objective. Unless MoP says it's completely ridiculous to think that. I will literally take anything that makes it cheaper to deploy. That's my stance this revision. People seem to agree on making it cheaper given the votes? Some people want grenades, some want cheaper ammo.

Okay so you're hedging this on that a good roll will fix the completely unrelated problem of the red shell by GM magic? In that logic a good roll on a rifle grenade will net us a rifle grenade, a cheaper exploding bullet and a cheaper red shell. That's a better net positive than "Make bullet cheaper".

Max, The rev explicitly states that it affects "bullets and shells alike" which it may well do (if to lesser effect for the shells,) since the spring wasn't explicitly removed. Now you could counter that obviously our people weren't stupid enough to leave the springs in while simplifying the rounds, but they made an automatic shotgun that fires 45 rounds per minute.

Okay but the shotgun shells were designed with a different detonation method as the GSR rounds and aren't given any mention in the design result that they have an overcomplicated detonation method with the only listed expense cost being the large amount of fulminated mercury and the cost of making sure each shell is made and fired in a way that keeps it stable. Replacing it with an amatol filler and moving the fulminated mercury to a small blasting cap to detonate the amatol would actually affect the red shell rather than trying to improve a problem that isn't there.

[TricMagic]

We could go with Pęknięcie Ammunition Mk2.

[FallacyofUrist]

Okay but the shotgun shells were designed with a different detonation method as the GSR rounds and aren't given any mention in the design result that they have an overcomplicated detonation method with the only listed expense cost being the large amount of fulminated mercury and the cost of making sure each shell is made and fired in a way that keeps it stable. Replacing it with an amatol filler and moving the fulminated mercury to a small blasting cap to detonate the amatol would actually affect the red shell rather than trying to improve a problem that isn't there.

This logic I'm about to hit you with is going to make your brain ache a bit, but bear with me.

It was never explicitly stated that there were no springs in the Red Shells.

Since my revision assumes that there are springs in the Red Shells, which it is removing along with the springs in the Ammunition to make them cheaper... then there will retroactively have been springs in the Red Shells to remove in order to make them cheaper.