ATST snippet #5

OrlandoNative wrote:Somehow I don't think that's exactly what the designers have in mind.

They might be called balloons, but if they're cell based, then, yes, they sound more like dirigibles than your typical hot air balloons.

They're "balloons" because they're not self propelled. They're meant for artillery spotting only AFAICT, so they don't need to be self propelled.

A cell structure is a bit more complicated than what you'd get from a real world hot air balloon, but that's because THESE balloons are using hydrogen instead of hot air and thus can get away with the extra mass that involves.

A dirigible or other airship is self propelled. In fact, what makes a dirigible a "dirigible" is that it has a rigid frame to hold the gas bags, not that it has a cell structure. An airship lacking that rigid frame would be a blimp.

And an airship with no engine or other means of self propulsion isn't an airship; it's a balloon.

Really, people are latching on to Charisian balloons having cells and are imagining them to be more sophisticated than what we're told they are.

The United States Army deployed balloons during the Civil War. They had two issues: (i) an army ordnance and supply operation that was against them, and (ii) a lack of doctrine for using them to generate employable information. The Confederates, who knew what they were, thought they made troop movements nearly impossible, and at least a few of the Union Generals commanding in the Virginia theater thought they had been quite effective.

runsforcelery wrote:Has it occurred to anyone that actually invading Zion might be A Bad Idea™ in the view of whatever lives under the Temple?

Just asking.

Mmmmm... invading the Temple might be, but probably not invading Zion itself, at least with the current level of weaponry.

After all, Zion was probably much smaller in the days of the Archangels, so chances are so would be any "defensive perimeter" that might be programmed into any unknown defense. Also, apparently troops in the Temple and in the city aren't an immediate no-no, since nothing's ever "woken up" from the antics of the Temple Guard.

And that probably would apply to explosives, at least if they're kept outside the Temple itself, since the explosion of the bomb planted didn't set anything off either.

So it *sort* of looks at least relatively safe, as long as the Temple itself is avoided.

OrlandoNative wrote:

runsforcelery wrote:Has it occurred to anyone that actually invading Zion might be A Bad Idea™ in the view of whatever lives under the Temple?

Just asking.

Mmmmm... invading the Temple might be, but probably not invading Zion itself, at least with the current level of weaponry.

After all, Zion was probably much smaller in the days of the Archangels, so chances are so would be any "defensive perimeter" that might be programmed into any unknown defense. Also, apparently troops in the Temple and in the city aren't an immediate no-no, since nothing's ever "woken up" from the antics of the Temple Guard.

And that probably would apply to explosives, at least if they're kept outside the Temple itself, since the explosion of the bomb planted didn't set anything off either.

So it *sort* of looks at least relatively safe, as long as the Temple itself is avoided.

I somewhat would not be surprised if the illustrious author's surprise arrangement is that the OBS except for defenses is non-functional, and the extra power sources correspond to bad design of the air conditioning and background music systems.

OrlandoNative wrote:

runsforcelery wrote:Has it occurred to anyone that actually invading Zion might be A Bad Idea™ in the view of whatever lives under the Temple?

Just asking.

Mmmmm... invading the Temple might be, but probably not invading Zion itself, at least with the current level of weaponry.

After all, Zion was probably much smaller in the days of the Archangels, so chances are so would be any "defensive perimeter" that might be programmed into any unknown defense. Also, apparently troops in the Temple and in the city aren't an immediate no-no, since nothing's ever "woken up" from the antics of the Temple Guard.

And that probably would apply to explosives, at least if they're kept outside the Temple itself, since the explosion of the bomb planted didn't set anything off either.

So it *sort* of looks at least relatively safe, as long as the Temple itself is avoided.

Mmmm... I wonder if our beloved author is offering us a hint or a false trail...

Dunno. It wull be interesting to find out, hopefully in this book.

As for the strategic situation facing the allies, I think they have to flank RW out of his positions rather than trying to take those positions head on. Even with 3 million men, Rainbow Waters can't be strong everywhere. Much of the story will probably have do do with how the allies solve the potential problem with their supply lines in a manner that allows them to utilize their mobility.

Don

-

wkernochan wrote:
And that brings us to the possibility of an all-seijin raid. The dilemma there is ethical: is it really right to starve all those people, especially the support serfs? The answer, I think, is that more people would die otherwise, and in particular more of the Good Guys.

They may be "support", but they're still helping the Army. I've never heard that any war *our* army fought in the enemy deliberately didn't target army engineers clearing beachheads or repairing bridges *just* because they were "support" rather than 1st line troops.

From the story so far, neither side has the "moral high ground" when it comes to whacking the other's soldiers - at least not until they surrender. After that, well, the ICA and their allies have a better record than that of those associated with the CoGA.

As far as true *civilians* go, the good guys are *definitely* the ICA and allies. They go out of their way to avoid "collateral damage" whenever possible. The CoGA doesn't even pay lip service to such a thing.

That said, what surprises *me* at this point is that no one has suggested making *gas* shells to break these new CoGA army defensive lines. While it's true it wouldn't actually destroy the *defenses*, it would certainly destroy the *defenders*, leaving no one to oppose the ICA as it took it's time to defuse the mine fields and blast holes in the defenses to allow access to the rear areas behind them. And the current level of Charisian chemical knowledge certainly could produce toxic gases. And so far no one has the technology to create true MOPP gear for protection.

After all, both sides have mines, and don't seem to have a qualm using them; and mines have to be one of the most indiscriminate weapons known at that level of warfare.

With the right prevailing winds, a few dozen gas shells could virtually depopulate a large section of defensive works, maximizing casualties to the opposing side, and probably leaving little that could be analyzed to determine how it was done and by what.

Not saying it's nice, but, as the quote goes, "War is Hell".

OrlandoNative wrote:With the right prevailing winds,

And there's your primary argument AGAINST using poison gas weapons of any type. Gas weapons are VERY unreliable and make fighting even more unpleasant than it already is, even for the side using it (because the wind might blow the wrong way).

The second would be that anyone researching the subject of gas weapons would quickly discover how taboo the use of such weapons became on Earth. For the side trying to maintain the moral high ground, that would be a sure fire way to stay AWAY from developing your own version, especially when you already have a huge tech lead. You don't want to be the side known to introduce a weapon that EVERYONE will consider pure evil to use.

Besides which, if you have the tech to deploy gas weapons, you also have the tech to make FAE. And Delthak is already using flammable gas for lightning.

evilauthor wrote:
The second would be that anyone researching the subject of gas weapons would quickly discover how taboo the use of such weapons became on Earth. For the side trying to maintain the moral high ground, that would be a sure fire way to stay AWAY from developing your own version, especially when you already have a huge tech lead. You don't want to be the side known to introduce a weapon that EVERYONE will consider pure evil to use.

Mmmm... there is a UN sponsored treaty banning the use of mines as well. I don't see where that kept them from being in use, there or here.

And I bet if the CoGA managed to cook some gas shells up first, Clyntyn and company wouldn't consider their use "evil", as long as it was used against the other side....

evilauthor wrote:
And there's your primary argument AGAINST using poison gas weapons of any type. Gas weapons are VERY unreliable and make fighting even more unpleasant than it already is, even for the side using it (because the wind might blow the wrong way).

Lots of places have what are known as "prevailing" winds. Either seasonal, or by time of day.

While it's true that there's always *some* risk in using gas as a weapon, there's certainly risk in assaulting a manned and prepared defensive position as well.

If you use a gas that's heavier than air, and lob it into trenches and other defensive works, it's fairly likely to stay there even if there's a bit of wind, as long as it's not too windy. Remember that the actual front line is often a bit taller than the area behind it, to hide gun emplacements, barracks, troop rally points and storage areas from direct enemy observation. Thus the enemy positions actually will help *contain* the gas rather than allow it to spread, as long as your delivery system is fairly accurate.

Most gasses that they could make are not all that persistent, they will settle to the ground and seep into the soil. Experimentation could easily be done to see just how long it takes to make it safe enough for booted and possibly leather clad troops to march across an effected area.

*If* you think for a moment fighting is supposed to be even the slightest bit "pleasant", you obviously have a problem. Killing people isn't "pleasant", and shouldn't be. However, dying isn't either. As has been said, the job of a soldier isn't to die for his country, it's to make the other poor SOB die for *his*.

evilauthor wrote:
A dirigible or other airship is self propelled. In fact, what makes a dirigible a "dirigible" is that it has a rigid frame to hold the gas bags, not that it has a cell structure. An airship lacking that rigid frame would be a blimp.

What makes a dirigible a "dirigible" is simply the fact of it being steered, which implies propulsion. There's no requirement for a rigid structure. See: http://www.airships.net/dirigible-airships

They quote a derivation from French, other places quote a derivation from the Latin dirigere.