SFDebris: Field of Fire
Re: SFDebris: Field of Fire
So just a rifle then?
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
- Captain Seafort
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15548
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
- Location: Blighty
Re: SFDebris: Field of Fire
O'Brien claimed it was a later addition. Looking at it, however, the transporter and it's associated targeting systems are clearly integral parts of the weapon. He was probably just following the cover story establish to protect the party line that the Federation doesn't assassinate people.Mikey wrote:IIRC, the microtransporter was a later addition.
Maybe bullets were the largest/most massive items the micro-transporter could handle. Alternatively, the Feds realised that its vulnerability to jamming severely reduced its effectiveness to the point it wasn't worth bothering with.McAvoy wrote:I agree it would make for an excellent spiner weapon but not a soldier proof battle weapon. But why not go the next step and start creating grenade launchers with that transporter device?
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
Re: SFDebris: Field of Fire
Perhaps. But the bigger the weapon, the bigger that transporter device could be to handle the bullet/shell.
I am more inclined to believe the Feds just realized it could be jammed or certain messed with. That and the weapon works, then so can a regular transporter or sensor to locate the person.
Either that of the Feds didn't bother because it didn't have enough blinking lights on it.
I am more inclined to believe the Feds just realized it could be jammed or certain messed with. That and the weapon works, then so can a regular transporter or sensor to locate the person.
Either that of the Feds didn't bother because it didn't have enough blinking lights on it.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
- Captain Seafort
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15548
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
- Location: Blighty
Re: SFDebris: Field of Fire
By which point you're probably going to start stretching the definition of "man-portable". Even the bullet transporter was a pretty big box - imagine scaling that, which only took a 9mm equivalent, up to the size required for a 203 round, let alone a 66 or Milan.McAvoy wrote:Perhaps. But the bigger the weapon, the bigger that transporter device could be to handle the bullet/shell.
Probably true.Either that of the Feds didn't bother because it didn't have enough blinking lights on it.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
Re: SFDebris: Field of Fire
I don't know. Depends really. Are we talking about some sort of artillery weapon that can be moved by a few men before being moved to another location by a vehicle? A 203mm gun isn't exactly a 'man portable' gun to begin with.
But what is the weapon would be really for? 203mm round isn't what I'd call a sniper weapon neither is a 88mm. A regular 203 or 88 gun should do nicely especially with the advanced targeting sensors of the Feds. Or hell using a new type of explosive or metal for AP rounds.
But what is the weapon would be really for? 203mm round isn't what I'd call a sniper weapon neither is a 88mm. A regular 203 or 88 gun should do nicely especially with the advanced targeting sensors of the Feds. Or hell using a new type of explosive or metal for AP rounds.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
- Captain Seafort
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15548
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
- Location: Blighty
Re: SFDebris: Field of Fire
M203, not 203mm.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
- Deepcrush
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 18917
- Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
- Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA
Re: SFDebris: Field of Fire
I just had an image of an M4 with a 203mm sling...
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
Re: SFDebris: Field of Fire
Oops. Yeah screw that. If you can somehow make a 203mm cannon portable for a guy to fire, you don't need anything else.Captain Seafort wrote:M203, not 203mm.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
-
- Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 35635
- Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
- Commendations: The Daystrom Award
- Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
- Contact:
Re: SFDebris: Field of Fire
If you could find a guy who can carry a 203mm gun around, then he doesn't need a gun to kick ass.Deepcrush wrote:I just had an image of an M4 with a 203mm sling...
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
- Deepcrush
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 18917
- Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
- Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA
Re: SFDebris: Field of Fire
A real life Ogryn... lol
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
Re: SFDebris: Field of Fire
True.Mikey wrote:If you could find a guy who can carry a 203mm gun around, then he doesn't need a gun to kick ass.Deepcrush wrote:I just had an image of an M4 with a 203mm sling...
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"