I remember in WC IV when they described the effect of the Flashpak. IIRC, They said that it superheats the atmosphere inside the hull, basically turning the inside into an inferno. Does this mean that a fire destroys the ship? I know that it kills everyone inside, but does it actually do damage to the hull of the ship making it unsalvagable?
Flashpaks
- Thread starter Greywolf
- Start date
- Status
Mekt-Hakkikt
Mpanty's bane
Well, the hull should remain farely intact. But everything within the ship is destroyed (i.e. technical equipment) and fuel and weapons are likely to explode and thus damaging the hull nevertheless.
Well.. when the flash-pak goes you can kiss the electronics,
the crew, the ordinance, the wiring, the plumbing, and in short just about everything short of the hull itself buh-bye.
Afterwards, it's probably cheaper just to build a new hull
then to pay for cleaning up what's left and putting it back
into service.
Respectfully,
Brian P.
the crew, the ordinance, the wiring, the plumbing, and in short just about everything short of the hull itself buh-bye.
Afterwards, it's probably cheaper just to build a new hull
then to pay for cleaning up what's left and putting it back
into service.
Respectfully,
Brian P.
You'd get massive waves of superheated air, melting and vapourising near enough everything in it's path.
The superstructure of the ship would remain more-or-less intact (apart from any secondary explosions caused by fuel, munitions etc) but all you'd have left is a lot of scrap metal.
The superstructure of the ship would remain more-or-less intact (apart from any secondary explosions caused by fuel, munitions etc) but all you'd have left is a lot of scrap metal.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
Superheats the metal (and thus damages it) until the atmosphere ignights... which kills everyone and blows up any munitions/explosives/so forth onboard the ship.
I seem to recall we had this argument some time ago.
We know they have some limitations to their use. Although they are effective against many (older?) hull types, they are unable to penetrate certain materials/hulls e.g. the outer hull of the Versuvius. To my knowledge, there is nothing which says that they are or are not effective against the bug ships.
The morality of using such a weapon is debatable. To me, they are probably have a similar status to napalm or thermite plasma weapons - useful in certain situations, but not something that is regularly carried.
We know they have some limitations to their use. Although they are effective against many (older?) hull types, they are unable to penetrate certain materials/hulls e.g. the outer hull of the Versuvius. To my knowledge, there is nothing which says that they are or are not effective against the bug ships.
The morality of using such a weapon is debatable. To me, they are probably have a similar status to napalm or thermite plasma weapons - useful in certain situations, but not something that is regularly carried.
Bob McDob
Better Health Through Less Flavor
Oh gods, not this again...
Sorry Kat, nothing personal, it's just that the last time this happened the thread turned into a debate on morality and Nazis, and my head still hurts...
Basically my feelings on why it's not used today are
1.The Black Lance (Space Nazis) used 'em. 'Nuff said.
2. Morality issues (see below)
The morality behind the 'pak is debatable (ouch...flashbacks), but in the end it's still like picking between napalm and nukes. Or, as the say, "I give you a choice, you can be gutted or decapitated!"
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
To be fair, every discussion on the internet invariably becomes about Nazis.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
I'm sorry to ruin your high opinion of yourself, but we're not "blind" enough to believe everything everyone tells us in an offensive manner.
The burden of proof is upon you.
The burden of proof is upon you.
The mere fact that we demonise such elements as the Black Lance, yet organisations such as the CIA, MI5 and all sorts of special and secret units are 'for the good' of their respective nations.
In a manner, the BL was for the good of the Confederation. Bioweapons so bad? Well many countries tested nuclear weapons on their own personnel, or even natives of south Pacific islands (there have been numerous reported birth defects.
Also possibly the most inhumane test of them all. Hiroshima. Practically left untouched by the USAF to gain an insight into how effective a nuke is on a city.
The Black Lance do not look so bad after all.
In a manner, the BL was for the good of the Confederation. Bioweapons so bad? Well many countries tested nuclear weapons on their own personnel, or even natives of south Pacific islands (there have been numerous reported birth defects.
Also possibly the most inhumane test of them all. Hiroshima. Practically left untouched by the USAF to gain an insight into how effective a nuke is on a city.
The Black Lance do not look so bad after all.
OK, we know there are government agencies and that we will never know what they really get up to. But even if they do perform illegal actions, they don't go around acting like the Lance.
Correct me if I'm worng but hasn't George Bush already broken international agreements regarding pollution and spacial weaponry? Would this be considered illegal on a global scale?
Correct me if I'm worng but hasn't George Bush already broken international agreements regarding pollution and spacial weaponry? Would this be considered illegal on a global scale?
- Status