Technology

Zakharra wrote:[snippage fore and aft]It's still too soon for them to have even a primitive Gatling.

Do recall that the original Gatling design used black powder and percussion caps loaded on to iron cases. (I hesitate to describe them as cartridges.) This is something Charis could certainly do.

The great thing about gatlings is that they're not self-loading; like other externally powered automatic weapons, they're tolerant of cartridges that don't fire. Self-loading weapons like the Maxim aren't. When you're still figuring out the whole mass production of ammunition thing with new chemistry and new technique all over the place, that's likely to be valuable. (So is not having to figure out disintegrating-link belt feeds. Those are fussy.)

The tricky thing is designing a gatling-style rotary cannon; it's not obvious. Gatling was a very clever guy with mechanical devices. There may not be someone from the Inner Circle handy to get quite that inspired in such a specific greasy mechanical way.

You can spin a gatling with compressed air or steam; the USN had them in calibres up to 1" until the first decade of the 20th century for fending-off-boarders sort of roles. (Another decade of institutional inertia and they might have been adopted as anti-aircraft technology in the 1920s.)

It's not hard to imagine the Charisian Navy deciding that the smallest size that will get them a bursting charge is just the ticket for anything other than anti-shipping on the inshore ironclads. You don't need the high a rate of fire of modern aircraft gatlings, and you've already got the compressed air and the heavy pintle mount for a 4" quick-firer. You could probably do a "1.5lbr" -- 37mm -- as a five barrelled gatling at a couple hundred rounds per minute with a gravity feed from a hopper -- the original gatling design -- and some busy loaders. Doesn't need an especially high muzzle velocity, either; the point is to have HE shells that explode, so you can chew up anything made of wood and troops.

DrakBibliophile wrote:IMO no on the V1 type rockets.

TN4994 wrote:Weapons: besides previous posts.
Looking at dry chemical launched V1 type rockets. They already have signal rockets and timed explosives.

IIRC, the "V1" was not a rocket, but a ram-jet powered, unguided, pilotless "Flying Bomb" - None the less lethal for all that but more of a "misguided missile" than anything else.

The "V2" WAS a rocket, but liquid fuelled - The embryonic Charisian Chemical Industry is too undeveloped to support the fuels needed

(Rocket Science is extremely simple, It's Rocket ENGINEERING that is complex)

For any kind of rockets we need a lot of hydrogen as a propeller. Gatling gun will be great for Charis when we start fighting with Harchong army. How much that was? 200 thousands? One thing which could help a lot would be introduction of real chemical industry, they will soon need to produce tons of propellants for ammunition and nitrocellulose is very unstable.
Zeppelin type ships could be in service pretty fast, we have nearly everything to create them. So why not?

DrakBibliophile wrote:IMO no on the V1 type rockets.

TN4994 wrote:Weapons: besides previous posts.
Looking at dry chemical launched V1 type rockets. They already have signal rockets and timed explosives.

chrisd wrote:IIRC, the "V1" was not a rocket, but a ram-jet powered, unguided, pilotless "Flying Bomb" - None the less lethal for all that but more of a "misguided missile" than anything else.

The "V2" WAS a rocket, but liquid fuelled - The embryonic Charisian Chemical Industry is too undeveloped to support the fuels needed

(Rocket Science is extremely simple, It's Rocket ENGINEERING that is complex)

The V1 and V2 were terror weapons designed to be used against civilian targets. I can't see Merlin or Staynair approving of the use of terror weapons against the civilian populations of the Temple Lands.

Draken wrote:For any kind of rockets we need a lot of hydrogen as a propeller. Gatling gun will be great for Charis when we start fighting with Harchong army. How much that was? 200 thousands? One thing which could help a lot would be introduction of real chemical industry, they will soon need to produce tons of propellants for ammunition and nitrocellulose is very unstable.
Zeppelin type ships could be in service pretty fast, we have nearly everything to create them. So why not?

You don't need hydrogen for a rocket. The V2 was fueled with alcohol and LOX. The F1 (first stage of the Saturn V Appollo moon rocket used RP1 and LOX (petroleum based fuel, similar to gasoline). Robert Goddard's first rockets used gasoline for a fuel. I will concede that the second and third stages of the Saturn V used the J2 rocket engine, which did use LH2 and LOX, but it is not required in order to build a rocket.

Graydon wrote:

You can spin a gatling with compressed air or steam; the USN had them in calibres up to 1" until the first decade of the 20th century for fending-off-boarders sort of roles. (Another decade of institutional inertia and they might have been adopted as anti-aircraft technology in the 1920s.)

And the British Navy still has 20mm Gatlings in wide service (see Vulcan) and the US Airforce has them in service in 7.62 mm and 30mm (see Minigun and A-10). For a gun that just has to fire it has significant advantages over recoil or gas operated automatic weapons.

Draken wrote:For any kind of rockets we need a lot of hydrogen as a propeller.

Um, no. Kerosene or Alcohol works for fuel. The oxidizer is harder, high test peroxide is one option or nitrogen tetroxide (both are nasty . That said, a solid fuel rocket is also possible (and easier - no pumps or pressurization issues)- a variant on a gun powder mix using tar instead of charcoal could permit larger sizes than a typical gunpowder rocket - i.e. Congreve rockets (Most Americans should be familiar with them (unless they slept through school))

AirTech wrote:

Draken wrote:For any kind of rockets we need a lot of hydrogen as a propeller.

Um, no. Kerosene or Alcohol works for fuel. The oxidizer is harder, high test peroxide is one option or nitrogen tetroxide (both are nasty . That said, a solid fuel rocket is also possible (and easier - no pumps or pressurization issues)- a variant on a gun powder mix using tar instead of charcoal could permit larger sizes than a typical gunpowder rocket - i.e. Congreve rockets (Most Americans should be familiar with them (unless they slept through school))

Could you tell us more about Congreve rockets?

AirTech wrote:

Draken wrote:For any kind of rockets we need a lot of hydrogen as a propeller.

Um, no. Kerosene or Alcohol works for fuel. The oxidizer is harder, high test peroxide is one option or nitrogen tetroxide (both are nasty . That said, a solid fuel rocket is also possible (and easier - no pumps or pressurization issues)- a variant on a gun powder mix using tar instead of charcoal could permit larger sizes than a typical gunpowder rocket - i.e. Congreve rockets (Most Americans should be familiar with them (unless they slept through school))

Diglycol - worked fine with the german WW2 rockets. The payload however is another matter. Right now the only source for Toluene is coal, so Amonal is possible but in low quantities. IMHO RDX is out of question.

RDX if I'm correct should be that hard to get limited quantities of it, but for mass scale production of it we need at least primitive electricity. Dynamite should be cheap replacement for RDX and with Zeppelins it will be very dangerous for CoGA, cus they will be unable to shoot it down, at least for some time.