Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests

Heavy Tri-barrels

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: Heavy Tri-barrels
Post by Jonathan_S   » Tue Jul 01, 2014 9:39 am

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8805
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Evilnerf wrote:OP here. Sorry, I was a bit drunk in my original post. Some people car surf when drunk, apparently I worry about Tri-barrels.

Anyway, I did some further research when sober and found that the "Heavy Tri-Barrel" is actually the standard one used by power armor troops and weapon emplacements according to House of Steel.

With this in mind, I think we can surmise that the Light Tri-barrel is the one used by people outside of battle armor. I guess this serves the roll as squad support weapon, although I'm not sure why you'd need it if the rifles have Full-Auto capability.
Well I know the tribarrels use a larger backpack ammo pack; so they're capable of much longer sustained fire than a pulser rifle.

But I'm not sure why they need three barrels to achieve that; instead of a backpack and feed tube attachment for a 'normal' rifle. But I don't remember if we've been given the cyclic rates of a rifle on full auto and of a tribarrel. (Nor do I believe we've been given the endurance of either)

So presumably the multiple barrels (and I assume multiple grav drivers) provide for some combination of faster cyclic rate and increased sustain fire duration. The grav drivers in a rifle presumably have a maximum rate they can be cycled at, and a tribarrel should (if loading ammo isn't a bottleneck) be able to fire 3x that rate simply by using drivers of the same cyclic rate on each of the 3 barrels. But it's also likely that the grav drivers or other mechanisms can't sustain their max cyclic rate indefinitely; going to 3 barrels lets you back off the firing rate for each barrel to something more sustainable while still matching or exceeding the burst rate for a single barrel/mechanism.
Top
Re: Heavy Tri-barrels
Post by MaxxQ   » Tue Jul 01, 2014 11:21 am

MaxxQ
BuNine

Posts: 1553
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:08 pm
Location: Greer, South Carolina USA

Theemile wrote:Oh, and a pinnance's mass won't help you - they are 250-300 tons (Jayne's RMN gives the mk 27 Condor a mass of ~260). Since we know each missile masses 120 tons or more, the pinnance's mass is pointless data.


First off, as can be seen from my renders and animations, it's the Mk28 Condor, not Mk27. Second, though I haven't pointed it out in any of the pics, the Condor masses 300 tons.
Top
Re: Heavy Tri-barrels
Post by Tenshinai   » Tue Jul 01, 2014 12:13 pm

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:34 pm
Location: Sweden

Evilnerf wrote:Okay, so I located a reference to the Light Tri-barrel being the "Heaviest man portable weapon in existence" so that must mean the Medium Tri-barrel is not man portable. Perhaps it's a Tri-barrel optimized to be carried by non-power armored troops, and then set up in the field, whereas the Heavy tri-barrel is designed for use in power armor.


It should probably be noted though, that "man portable" here may be WITH power armour.
Top
Re: Heavy Tri-barrels
Post by Evilnerf   » Tue Jul 01, 2014 12:56 pm

Evilnerf
Ensign

Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:53 pm

I don't think so. In House of Steel, it mentions that people in Battle Armor are usually equipped with Heavy Tri-barrels.

Also, in that same story that indicated the Light Tri-barrel was the heaviest man-portable weapon, a Marine without battle armor wants to (but doesn't ultimately get to) carry it to the bridge of a SD.
Top
Re: Heavy Tri-barrels
Post by Theemile   » Tue Jul 01, 2014 1:25 pm

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5249
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Dublin, OH

MaxxQ wrote:
Theemile wrote:Oh, and a pinnance's mass won't help you - they are 250-300 tons (Jayne's RMN gives the mk 27 Condor a mass of ~260). Since we know each missile masses 120 tons or more, the pinnance's mass is pointless data.


First off, as can be seen from my renders and animations, it's the Mk28 Condor, not Mk27. Second, though I haven't pointed it out in any of the pics, the Condor masses 300 tons.


:P
******
RFC said "refitting a Beowulfan SD to Manticoran standards would be just as difficult as refitting a standard SLN SD to those standards. In other words, it would be cheaper and faster to build new ships."
Top
Re: Heavy Tri-barrels
Post by Weird Harold   » Tue Jul 01, 2014 5:08 pm

Weird Harold
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4478
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:25 pm
Location: "Lost Wages", NV

Theemile wrote:You're also are a little back - Mk 27s are single drive capacitor Capitol missiles as of ~1910.


In trying to make sense of the description I was replying to, it was necessary to use the information contemporary with the description.

Theemile wrote:Oh, and a pinnance's mass won't help you - they are 250-300 tons (Jayne's RMN gives the mk 27 Condor a mass of ~260). Since we know each missile masses 120 tons or more, the pinnance's mass is pointless data.


It is relevant to the description "smaller than a LAC but larger than a pinnace."
.
.
.
Answers! I got lots of answers!

(Now if I could just find the right questions.)
Top
Re: Heavy Tri-barrels
Post by WLBjork   » Wed Jul 02, 2014 1:50 am

WLBjork
Commander

Posts: 186
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:45 am

Weird Harold wrote:
Theemile wrote:You're also are a little back - Mk 27s are single drive capacitor Capitol missiles as of ~1910.


In trying to make sense of the description I was replying to, it was necessary to use the information contemporary with the description.

Theemile wrote:Oh, and a pinnance's mass won't help you - they are 250-300 tons (Jayne's RMN gives the mk 27 Condor a mass of ~260). Since we know each missile masses 120 tons or more, the pinnance's mass is pointless data.


It is relevant to the description "smaller than a LAC but larger than a pinnace."


Key word missing. The pods are much larger than a pinnace.

However, that is physical dimensions and not necessarily weight. On the other hand I deliberately extended the quote for the comment about combat efficiency being the priority of the designers - they won't forget about the opposite reaction!



As for light tribarrels, didn't Carson Clinkscales wield one during the breakout from Tepes? (Thinking of once the boat bay was secure, and they were awaiting Honor)
Top
Re: Heavy Tri-barrels
Post by Weird Harold   » Wed Jul 02, 2014 2:22 am

Weird Harold
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4478
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:25 pm
Location: "Lost Wages", NV

WLBjork wrote:
Weird Harold wrote:It is relevant to the description "smaller than a LAC but larger than a pinnace."


Key word missing. The pods are much larger than a pinnace.

However, that is physical dimensions and not necessarily weight. ...


Pods are not likely to be more dense than a pinnace, so 250 tons is a definitive lower end for the mass of a Mk10 pod. Even five times that figure only roughly matches the mass of ten Mk27C missiles.

How much larger and how much more massive is still an open question.
.
.
.
Answers! I got lots of answers!

(Now if I could just find the right questions.)
Top
Re: Heavy Tri-barrels
Post by wastedfly   » Wed Jul 02, 2014 4:57 am

wastedfly
Commodore

Posts: 832
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:23 am

Tenshinai wrote:
Evilnerf wrote:Okay, so I located a reference to the Light Tri-barrel being the "Heaviest man portable weapon in existence" so that must mean the Medium Tri-barrel is not man portable. Perhaps it's a Tri-barrel optimized to be carried by non-power armored troops, and then set up in the field, whereas the Heavy tri-barrel is designed for use in power armor.


It should probably be noted though, that "man portable" here may be WITH power armour.


In Shadow of Freedom, had one or was it two guys who were carrying a tri barrel without powered armor as they did not have any marines. They were wearing their armored skin suits. This setup is depicted in House of Steel.
Top
Re: Heavy Tri-barrels
Post by SWM   » Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:40 am

SWM
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5928
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: U.S. east coast

Weird Harold wrote:Pods are not likely to be more dense than a pinnace, so 250 tons is a definitive lower end for the mass of a Mk10 pod. Even five times that figure only roughly matches the mass of ten Mk27C missiles.

How much larger and how much more massive is still an open question.

Since it has already been shown that a pod is at least twice the mass of its missiles, and a single missile is 120 tons, the lower end for the mass of a pod is a lot higher than 250 tons. That's why Theemile said that the statement that a pod is larger than a pinnace is not useful.
--------------------------------------------
Librarian: The Original Search Engine
Top

Return to Honorverse