SWM wrote:
I'm afraid I still don't see the advantage. You can get the same effect (safer, cheaper, higher manufacturing tolerances) by simply using a smaller amount of propellant. Especially once you have advanced explosives that can be tightly controlled, what advantages does an air cannon have? You can replace the air cannon with a low-power explosive and still use a similar barrel, etc., can't you?
There is logic in what you are saying. But as I look around to a counter, let's try this. Gunpowder gets its propulsion effect by the explosion which creates a quickly peaking pressure that forces the projectile out of the barrel.
By way of contrast, a spud gun you have the pressure before hand that does not involve heat. The propulsion is caused by the release of the pressure with the valve. While it is possible for both to cause an explosion, it seems to me that even when you are talking about equivalent force, the gunpowder demands a stronger, better made barrel due to the nature of the explosion.
My spudgun is made of pcv pipe. The only thing that is metal is the globe valve which contains the pressure. With a small projectile it is not uncommon to get 200 plus yards with just thirty pounds of pressure.
Now I know Safehold doesn't have pcv pipe. But they should be able to manufacture lighter barrels along with the containment chambers out of metal easily enough. And while we are on this kick which I don't seriously expect to see in the books, why not conjecture steam powered air compressors to pressurize a bunch of containment chambers before the battle?
As for whether or not there is really sufficient advantage to this to make it worthwhile to pursue, I am not prepared to say.
Don