Roland Peacetime duties

pnakasone wrote:Its not just marines Rolands are lacking but extra warm bodies in general to do anything other the run and fight the ship.

A question is how likely is a Roland to encounter a situation that requires boarding parties or prizes crew? Unless they encounter such situations in a regular bases the extra crew and marines are waste of personal that can be used elsewhere.

If they are a humanitarian navy instead of bloodthirsty maniacs I would say vary likely that they would need boarding parties and prize crews!

The goal of every engagement should not be blow everything to dust, killing all the enemy in the process.

The goal of most engagements should be neutralize all enemy with minimal damage to ourselves and without unnecessary deaths to the enemy.

Well, once your enemy be he pirate or warship of another navy is disables or surrenders, then what do you do?

Think back to the problems caused when 40 solarian SD's surrendered in spindal. This will be the same sort of problems that any warship will face if it dosen't have the capacity for boarding parties or prize crews.

There are some jobs that a small pure attack ship like the roland will excel in. Unfortunately, the number of jobs where boarding parties and prize crews will be likely are far higher than those without the possibility.

Relax wrote:

darrell wrote:Have you ever watched the show "Mythbusters"? they have done several episodes on ricochets. And yes, ricochets can both travel more than 5 feet and bounce at more than a 95 degree angle.

Yea it was Vince not you sorry.

I'll go with my own tests thank you very much, not some BS hogwash on TV. Or, you can look up video's on youtube where real people actually place real armor plate etc and then check splatter patterns even upwards of .50cal bullets. Or you could just get your butt to a shooting range and look at the splash patterns from bullets after they have struck the steel targets. It is rather obvious how far the "splatter" goes. As the ground will literally have the outline of said lead bullets spray pattern on it.

The only ricochets that ever happen which could be dangerous to your life are those behind the point of impact. Under no circumstances is anyone in danger in front of the point of impact unless you are literally standing directly beside the point of impact.

A shooting range need not be a large volume. It could be no larger than a square meter by whatever length one wishes. And oh, by the way, only rarely do people shoot to "stay in shape". Like once or twice a week. Not everyday.

At an US Army combat pistol range, where the Pistol, Semiautomatic, 9mm, M9 was being fired with the 9×19mm Parabellum full metal jacket ball round, I have PERSONALLY WITNESSED where a projectile bounced back all the way to the firing line, striking the ground at the firer's feet. The projectile was still hot from being fired.

If that projectile had bounced back at just slightly higher above the ground, it could have hit the firer or firer's safety in the face or IN AN EYE, potentially disfiguring, seriously injuring, blinding or even KILLING the firer or firer's safety.

Prior to that incident, I enforceed the US Army's policy of wearing a helmet, body armor, ballistic lens eye protection, and hearing protection at ranges because it was the Army's policy and it was my job as an NCO to carry out the policies of the Army. After that incident, I understood (on a real and very personal basis) why the Army had adopted that policy (not just the idea of training the way you will fight) and completely supported the Army's policy of wearing a helmet, body armor, ballistic lens eye protection, and hearing protection at any zeroing, practice or qualification range directly being controlled and run by US Army personnel where US Army personnel would fire live ammunition.

Some background information on the pistol range. The point of view is from the initial firing line (firers initially engaged targets from this point, before moving forward down a straight path perpendicular to the initial firing line to continue to engage targets):

Plastic pop-up targets behind earthen berms, at a minimum range of 10 meters and a maximum range of 25 meters from the initial firing line, positioned to the left and right of the path the firers would move forward on. No target was directly in front of a firer at any time, but forward of and slightly to the right or left of a firer. (While the pop-up targets were positioned parallel to the initial firing line, the firer would never be shooting perpendicular (90 degrees) to any target. Instead the firer would be shooting at a angle of less than 90 degrees to the target.)

The top of the target pits behind the berm were topped by a single large horizontal beam, approximately the size of a heavy wooden railroad tie. These beams were exposed to the firers, due to the earth just in front of it being eroded away from the many projectiles fired in the past that missed the target low, striking the top of the berms in front of the target pits and tearing away the earth that had previously shielded the beams from impacts. I suspect that the projectile that bounced back to the initial firing line first struck and ricocheted off of one of these beams, another firer having missed their target low.

A high, thick earthen berm backstop placed behind the most distant target at a minimum distance of 35 meters from the initial firing line.

The range firing lane safeties (one for each firing lane) were positioned immediately behind and slightly to the non-firing hand side of the firer so that they could look over their shoulder, without interfering with the firer as they drew, aimed, fired and reloaded--as the firer first engaged the targets that popped up, and then followed the firer moving forward down the path to engage the the targets at closer range when instructed by the tower range safety.

I was one of the range firing lane safeties (wearing helmet, body armor, ballistic eye lens protection, and hearing protection just as the firers were) when I personally witnessed one of the projectiles bouncing back to the feet of the firer I was just behind. And this happened when the firers were at the farthest point from anything (in the direction of fire) that could produce a ricochet or bouncer.

----------------------------------------------------------------
On a different note, I echo darrell's reply that you incorrectly attributed his quote. You quoted darrell as saying what I (Vince) had posted, and quoted me (Vince) as saying what darrell had posted. In the future, please be more careful when quoting another person's post so that the correct person is accurately credited for what they posted.

I will personally either

1) Call you a liar, highly doubtful, as perfect culdesacs with perfect angles are possible...
2) Call you an idiot as the ricochet in question couldn't even penetrate cardboard let alone kill a tweety bird. For Pete's sake do the simple math! We are talking tops, 100mph even assuming 35m length. This a third the speed of even the worst BB gun you could possibly buy. On top of the fact that the shard in question will be even smaller than that of a BB.

Or, as I wrote, ricochets cannot kill you even if you are standing directly in front of it at a mere 5 feet from the point of ricochet instead of back a ways. At worst, you could scratch an eyeball. Not blind you, but scratch it.

A flat armor plat under no circumstances will bounce steel back in your face. It requires multiple angles to return a partial bullet spall to you at very low velocities. Gets back to that pesky thing called elastic deflection. IE a spring which is the driving factor in overcoming momentum.

Think I will worry about exploding breaches and cartridges who hang up and get flung in my face for the need for safety glasses. Somewhere out there in the wild blue yonder, I am sure some enterprising young man can find some magical perfect steel/concrete culdesac to shoot into which may pepper himself with a fine dust of lead.

You have folks shoot with all their gear, because that is how they will do so in reality... Not because it makes them safer on the shooting range. It makes them safer in real life.

Ricochets are a myth promulgated by Hollywood or those who don't bother to use reason.

Torn up steel at close range can be pretty nasty. Once it gets cratered you start getting nasty spall from bullets spraying the shooters.

Relax wrote:2) Call you an idiot as the ricochet in question couldn't even penetrate cardboard let alone kill a tweety bird. For Pete's sake do the simple math! We are talking tops, 100mph even assuming 35m length. This a third the speed of even the worst BB gun you could possibly buy. On top of the fact that the shard in question will be even smaller than that of a BB.

A ricochet fragment smaller than a BB traveling at just 10MPH has the capability to destroy an eye. I don't know about you but I personally would rather be dead than blind.

A piece of straw, traveling at 100 MPH (tornado) has been known to have been driven more than 2" into a solid tree trunk. BB's have killed. Although it is not common, ricochets do have the capability to kill. Although a large percentage of the time there is no major problem with a ricochet, SOMETIMES THERE IS.

Relax wrote:I will personally either

1) Call you a liar, highly doubtful, as perfect culdesacs with perfect angles are possible...
2) Call you an idiot as the ricochet in question couldn't even penetrate cardboard let alone kill a tweety bird. For Pete's sake do the simple math! We are talking tops, 100mph even assuming 35m length. This a third the speed of even the worst BB gun you could possibly buy. On top of the fact that the shard in question will be even smaller than that of a BB.

Or, as I wrote, ricochets cannot kill you even if you are standing directly in front of it at a mere 5 feet from the point of ricochet instead of back a ways. At worst, you could scratch an eyeball. Not blind you, but scratch it.

A flat armor plat under no circumstances will bounce steel back in your face. It requires multiple angles to return a partial bullet spall to you at very low velocities. Gets back to that pesky thing called elastic deflection. IE a spring which is the driving factor in overcoming momentum.

Think I will worry about exploding breaches and cartridges who hang up and get flung in my face for the need for safety glasses. Somewhere out there in the wild blue yonder, I am sure some enterprising young man can find some magical perfect steel/concrete culdesac to shoot into which may pepper himself with a fine dust of lead.

You have folks shoot with all their gear, because that is how they will do so in reality... Not because it makes them safer on the shooting range. It makes them safer in real life.

Ricochets are a myth promulgated by Hollywood or those who don't bother to use reason.

Some more information on the projectile that bounced back.

1) The projectile was clearly a 9mm pistol ball projectile.

2) The projectile had definitely been fired, as the rifling grooves from the barrel of the M9 pistol were clearly visible on the projectile.

3) The projectile had just been fired, as it was still warm to the touch from being fired.

4) The projectile, other than the rifling grooves on it, was not deformed, bent, dented, flattend, cracked or broken. It was fully intact.

Prior to the incident, I thought that a projectile fired from a firearm that bounce back or ricochet would have suffered some damage from the impact that caused the projectile to bounce back or ricochet. The incident showed me that it was possible for a projectile to bounce back or ricochet without damage.

Vince wrote:Some more information on the projectile that bounced back.

1) The projectile was clearly a 9mm pistol ball projectile.

2) The projectile had definitely been fired, as the rifling grooves from the barrel of the M9 pistol were clearly visible on the projectile.

3) The projectile had just been fired, as it was still warm to the touch from being fired.

4) The projectile, other than the rifling grooves on it, was not deformed, bent, dented, flattend, cracked or broken. It was fully intact.

Prior to the incident, I thought that a projectile fired from a firearm that bounce back or ricochet would have suffered some damage from the impact that caused the projectile to bounce back or ricochet. The incident showed me that it was possible for a projectile to bounce back or ricochet without damage.

Your fishing stories must be really great around a camp fire.

"was not deformed, bent, dented, flattend, cracked, or broken" tells everyone in this whole world, you just lied your ass off, or woefully ignorant. In other words, said bullet never ricocheted. In other words, said bullet barely made it out of the gun barrel via a dead cartridge!!!

Thanks for the comic cartoon. Next time, write for Disney.

darrell wrote:A ricochet fragment smaller than a BB traveling at just 10MPH has the capability to destroy an eye. I don't know about you but I personally would rather be dead than blind.

A piece of straw, traveling at 100 MPH (tornado) has been known to have been driven more than 2" into a solid tree trunk. BB's have killed. Although it is not common, ricochets do have the capability to kill. Although a large percentage of the time there is no major problem with a ricochet, SOMETIMES THERE IS.

1) 10mph, not true as anyone knows who has been to the BEACH with the wind blowing at +40mph blowing sand and what not into a solid wall of debris... I suggest going to the beach someday in your future. Might learn something. It is pretty as well. Sand, is going to be harder and sharper than lead by the way.

2) Might want to try even a tiny google search for your claims for straw: http://www.livescience.com/39270-tornad ... -wood.html 320mph... Showed the straw "fact" is indeed a myth. Just like the ricochet myth. Or, if you had ever seen tornado damage, you might have taken note that the bark has been stripped off the trees in extreme cases and there isn't anything "STUCK" into the bare wood with horrendous numbers of much harder/stiffer branches around. you will see metal roofing embedded into wood very often. If you soaked the straw in water and then freeze dried it, then and only then might it be able to penetrate something. You will always find lots of debris jammed into even the tinniest of cracks. Indeed, they can be jammed in very tightly. That is not stuff being jammed into the wood. Or, you could contemplate what your myth means to parajumpers who free fall at +120mph with nylon straps etc whipping around/against them. Or those of us who go flying at 150mph without doors on the airplane and forget to put a paper map in its case and it goes flying around.

If what you claimed was true, then fiberglass leading edges and the noses of airplanes (just as soft as wood)would be like a peg board of grass and bird beaks. They aren't.

Relax wrote:

darrell wrote:A ricochet fragment smaller than a BB traveling at just 10MPH has the capability to destroy an eye. I don't know about you but I personally would rather be dead than blind.

A piece of straw, traveling at 100 MPH (tornado) has been known to have been driven more than 2" into a solid tree trunk. BB's have killed. Although it is not common, ricochets do have the capability to kill. Although a large percentage of the time there is no major problem with a ricochet, SOMETIMES THERE IS.

1) 10mph, not true as anyone knows who has been to the BEACH with the wind blowing at +40mph blowing sand and what not into a solid wall of debris... I suggest going to the beach someday in your future. Might learn something. It is pretty as well. Sand, is going to be harder and sharper than lead by the way.

2) Might want to try even a tiny google search for your claims for straw: http://www.livescience.com/39270-tornad ... -wood.html 320mph... Showed the straw "fact" is indeed a myth. Just like the ricochet myth. Or, if you had ever seen tornado damage, you might have taken note that the bark has been stripped off the trees in extreme cases and there isn't anything "STUCK" into the bare wood with horrendous numbers of much harder/stiffer branches around. you will see metal roofing embedded into wood very often. If you soaked the straw in water and then freeze dried it, then and only then might it be able to penetrate something. You will always find lots of debris jammed into even the tinniest of cracks. Indeed, they can be jammed in very tightly. That is not stuff being jammed into the wood. Or, you could contemplate what your myth means to parajumpers who free fall at +120mph with nylon straps etc whipping around/against them. Or those of us who go flying at 150mph without doors on the airplane and forget to put a paper map in its case and it goes flying around.

If what you claimed was true, then fiberglass leading edges and the noses of airplanes (just as soft as wood)would be like a peg board of grass and bird beaks. They aren't.

1. You are comparing apples to oranges. A sand grain is much less than a mm, a BB is 4.5mm diameter, and it is made of lead, which is 3 times more dense than silica sand. the size and weight ratio of a BB versus a grain of sand is about the same as a bowling ball vs a tennis ball. It is easy to catch a tennis ball, even if dropped from 40', very few people could catch a bowling ball that is dropped from 10' without lots of practice.

2. I did do an internet search first and did find websites that claimed straws driven into trees and telephone poles by tornadoes had happened, in fact there are pictures of this available on the internet.

Wound ballistics literature says about 200ft/sec is the speed needed for a typical handgun bullet to penetrate the skin. BBs need more like 330ft/sec.