Explain 10mm Explosive Tipped Caseless
Kevin E Ross
You are correct in that caseless ammo is just a projectile and
propellant. Propellant ignition is usually electrical; that must be the
"pulse" in "pulse rifle."
That part about the M41 is believable, however:
1) Look at the size of the magazine on the thing. It supposedly holds
95 10-millimeter rounds. There must be a pretty impressive (and
compact) feeding mechanism at work here.
2) The LEDs showing "rounds remaining" are on the side of the gun, so
the camera gets a good look at them, but the shooter doesn't.
You might be able to get a discussion going in rec.guns...
Kevin
Leif Eriksson
>Gorman says the M41A Pulse rifles fire '10mm explosive tipped caseless'
>rounds, now, from my understanding the 'case' of a rifle round is the bit
>that contains the charge. So how come when Vas is firing in the airducts
>near the end of the film you can clearly see cartridge cases ejecting
>from the pulse rifle??. Is this an error in the film or have I got it all
>wrong.
>This has probably been done to death but i missed it.
>
>Hudson
>
>17 Days.......man, were not goin' to last 17 hours.
That's because 10 mm explosive tipped caseless doesn't exist yet, so they
had to use standard 9mm submachine guns for the wepaons.
I think the M41A is based on the French MAT49 submachinegun, although I am
not sure. The smartgun is based on the German WWII MG42 machine gun, and
if you look closely you can see the ammo-belt hanging from it in several
shots, most notably when Drake runs out ot ammo. You actually see the belt
disappearing...
The flamers are based on the American M16 rifle, by the way.
Leif Eriksson, the One and Only
Eric Gross
relatively simple and inexpensive. Hand-held lasers of sufficient power to
serve as weapons are probably going to be difficult to build, at best, even a
couple of hundred years into the future, barring some really, really radical
advances in power sources. What's a phaser, besides something made up for
Star Trek? What's the actual technology? A charged particle-beam weapon?
Again, by the time we can make a particle accelerator with a power source
potent enough to function as a hand-held weapon, I think the technology would
have advanced far beyond anything else we saw in Aliens . . . . Besides, we
are dealing here with essentially light infantry. In the world of the
Colonial Marines we don't know what a heavy weapons unit might carry . . . .
As regards the shotgun, see my point above -- they are *NASTY* weapons
and there is little that is more effective in a close fight. Plenty of
soldiers in Vietnam, for example, carried their own "non-reg" weapons into the
field for just such occassions. Loved those sawed-offs. Hicks is a
*completely* believable character in this regards.
>1. The smart guns seem much too large and cumbersome to use in confined
> areas. And what's the point? The aliens seem to blow up when hit by
> a (handy, easily manuvered) pulse rifle just as easily as they do
> when hit by a smart gun.
First, you are right -- those gyro-stabilized machine guns are cumbersome.
Second -- ever lug a BAR around? No, too old. How about an M61? Nice weapon,
cumbersome. A lot of medium to heavy machine guns are heavy and
cumbersome. Some heavies take a crew to operate, and are dissasembled
when carried, set up when needed. It doesn't mean you don't take them
along to the party, though . . . you WANT to have that firepower
around. Third, you are presupposing that these people knew everything
about engaging these specific aliens in combat before they went. All they
could really learn from Ripley's briefings, besides a general description of
the creature and its observed habits, is that these things are hard to kill.
Knowing that, I'd want to take old'painless along.
>2. Ripley has the forethought to tape a pulse rifle & a flamer together,
> load up her pockets with flares and tape the locator on top of the
> rifle, but she doesn't think to grab an extra clip for the pulse
> rifle???
A weakness, granted.
>3. We have remote-controlled robots today for doing things like exploring
> deep shipwrecks and volcanoes. Doesn't it make sense that the Marines
> going on a bug-hunt would have some type of similar device so that it
> could be used to explore hazardous areas before humans were sent in?
> Something like an unsophisticated version of a Bishop?
Perhaps so, perhaps not. But even today, with some sophisticated sensors
and equipment around, every time you send out a patrol you don't
necessarily give them the kitchen sink. Also, you are again
partially presupposing that they know exactly what the situation is, how
dangerous it might be and exactly what's required. As far as official policy
is concerned, the aliens aren't even confirmed to exist. Also, if they have
an "unsophisticated Bishop" type android/robot to do this kind of dirty work,
then by logical extension you could ask why they don't just send out androids
to do ANY potential dirty work, ala BLADERUNNER and the use of
replicants. However, this would really kill a lot of the charm of the STORY.
>4. The Drop Ship drops off the Marines in the compound that has potentially
> been overrun with hostile aliens. Then what does the Drop Ship do -
> it flies a short distance away and lands IN the compound! How stupid!
> I would think that military protocol would mandate that the ship remain
> airborne for safe keeping, or at least land OUTSIDE of the compound.
> Not only that, but then they leave the door to the ship open while they go
> outside and wander around! Geesh, talk about no common sense ...
Yes, this always seemed a little weak to me. Part of it is a fuel quesiton,
I'm sure. You can't keep the bird in the air indefinitely (the grunts could
be hours on the search) and you don't want your pilots to get exhausted.
It's not uncommon (today) to air-insert troops and move the helos off to a
"safe" place or back to a nearby base, if practical, to wait until they are
needed, ready to respond at a moment's notice. Taking the dropship back up to
the Sulaco would most likely use up the fuel, and put the ship too far away
for quick evac, if needed. The better thing would have been to take the ship
clear of the compound, set down, and stay sealed up . . . . But remember
this: Gorman is in command. He makes some bad calls, like declaring the area
secure after only a partial search. The dropship probably remained
airborne, in stand-off loiter, ready to raise hell, until that point -- once
Gorman declared the site secure, as far as Ferro is concerned, everything's
cool -- she just has to set down and wait for the Lt. to call it a day and
send everybody home. If Gorman had been sharp, he probably would have
pronounced the site tentatively secure, instructed Ferro to move off a way,
set down at ready status, and stay sealed up and on guard until further word.
But it's Gorman . . . .
>5. No one stays on the Sulaco. I know, the FAQ addresses this, but it
> seems unbelievable that, on a military operation such as this that no
> one would remain on board the mother ship, regardless of how automated
> it was. True, there is a second drop ship but, as Bishop says, he's
> the only one (maybe Ferro and Spunkmeyer also) that can remote-pilot
> the ship down. What happens if Bishop gets wasted?
You're screwed. But remember the size of this operation -- it's dinky.
You've got a squad, essentially, of personnel; that's it. (It functions like a
platoon, commanded by a Lt., and split into two four/five person squads, but
its aggregate size, about 10 people, is equivalent to a modern infantry
squad.) I don't know the force structure of the Colonial Marines, but by
almost any standard commiting a squad of troops is a drop in the bucket. This
operation seems clearly a real low priority on the Marine's docket. I mean,
you send a single squad out, commanded by a newbie Lt. who's only on his
second actual combat drop. It's obvious that as far as command is concerned,
this is nothing more than sending out a patrol to check on some
nickle-and-dime, middle-of-nowhere shake'n'bake op whose transmitter's gone
dead. If the military had been really serious, they would have sent an
experienced officer and a larger command, likely a company or so, with some
really serious fire support. But, if they had done that, then it wouldn't
have been nearly as exciting, now, would it? Again, remember the elements of
STORY.
When you're dealing with only a squad of troops and a couple of dropships, you
don't have the luxury of redundancy. You're a patrol, a scout mission,
with some serious firepower to draw on, yes, but in the scheme of things
you're still a pawn on the chessboard. If you find something you can't
handle, you take off, nuke the site froom orbit; if that isn't an option, you
get out and call for reinforcements. If you can't do these things, and you
get overwhelmed, well, sorry, but dying is regretably a possibility in the
soldier's job description. At this level, you and your unit are expendable.
When it comes to sending out recon patrols, when things get tough, if you
manage to get your report back to higher command, you've done your job.
If you come back, that's bonus. That's hard, but that's the way it often is.
Randy Winney
>
> That's because 10 mm explosive tipped caseless doesn't exist yet, so they
> had to use standard 9mm submachine guns for the wepaons.
>
> I think the M41A is based on the French MAT49 submachinegun, although I am
> not sure. The smartgun is based on the German WWII MG42 machine gun, and
> if you look closely you can see the ammo-belt hanging from it in several
> shots, most notably when Drake runs out ot ammo. You actually see the belt
> disappearing...
>
> The flamers are based on the American M16 rifle, by the way.
>
people in suspended animation and build Bishops, why is it that their
weapons technology still seems to be rooted in the 20th century? Machine
guns? Grenade launchers? Flame throwers? How primitive! Why aren't they
using phasers/lasers/..., particle beam weapons, whatever, something
more high-tech? It seems kinda strange that there are so many high-tech
aspects of the movie, and yet Hicks uses a 12 gauge pump shotgun for
backup, just like the one I have in my closet at home.
I have wondered if the movie had a military advisor, since there seem to
be several weak military aspects of the plot:
1. The smart guns seem much too large and cumbersome to use in confined
areas. And what's the point? The aliens seem to blow up when hit by
a (handy, easily manuvered) pulse rifle just as easily as they do
when hit by a smart gun.
2. Ripley has the forethought to tape a pulse rifle & a flamer together,
load up her pockets with flares and tape the locator on top of the
rifle, but she doesn't think to grab an extra clip for the pulse
rifle???
3. We have remote-controlled robots today for doing things like exploring
deep shipwrecks and volcanoes. Doesn't it make sense that the Marines
going on a bug-hunt would have some type of similar device so that it
could be used to explore hazardous areas before humans were sent in?
Something like an unsophisticated version of a Bishop?
4. The Drop Ship drops off the Marines in the compound that has potentially
been overrun with hostile aliens. Then what does the Drop Ship do -
it flies a short distance away and lands IN the compound! How stupid!
I would think that military protocol would mandate that the ship remain
airborne for safe keeping, or at least land OUTSIDE of the compound.
Not only that, but then they leave the door to the ship open while they go
outside and wander around! Geesh, talk about no common sense ...
5. No one stays on the Sulaco. I know, the FAQ addresses this, but it
seems unbelievable that, on a military operation such as this that no
one would remain on board the mother ship, regardless of how automated
it was. True, there is a second drop ship but, as Bishop says, he's
the only one (maybe Ferro and Spunkmeyer also) that can remote-pilot
the ship down. What happens if Bishop gets wasted?
--
Randy Winney rawi...@dal.mobil.com
Mobil Exploration & Producing Technology Center
Dallas, Texas
Johan Dackner
> Gorman says the M41A Pulse rifles fire '10mm explosive tipped caseless'
> rounds, now, from my understanding the 'case' of a rifle round is the bit
> that contains the charge. So how come when Vas is firing in the airducts
> near the end of the film you can clearly see cartridge cases ejecting
> from the pulse rifle??. Is this an error in the film or have I got it all
> wrong.
> This has probably been done to death but i missed it.
Actually, it hasn't been discussed to death, and you're right, by Jove.
Isn't the jacket the part which surrounds the lead center of the bullet?
(As in "full metal jacket"). In the Aliens case, it seems they should fire
"10mm explosive tipped jacketless", but that doesn't sound as cool.
/Johan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johan Dackner mail me at:jo...@ne.kth.se
Dept. Nuclear Power Safety tel:+46 8 790 69 54
Royal Institute of Technology
Stockholm, Sweden Bye now, gotta scram....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darren W. Scharf
>f94...@matar.tdb.uu.se (Leif Eriksson) writes:
>>
>> That's because 10 mm explosive tipped caseless doesn't exist yet, so they
>> had to use standard 9mm submachine guns for the wepaons.
>>
>> I think the M41A is based on the French MAT49 submachinegun, although I am
>> not sure. The smartgun is based on the German WWII MG42 machine gun, and
>> if you look closely you can see the ammo-belt hanging from it in several
>> shots, most notably when Drake runs out ot ammo. You actually see the belt
>> disappearing...
>>
>> The flamers are based on the American M16 rifle, by the way.
>>
>If the technology exists in ALIENS to be able to do things like put
>people in suspended animation and build Bishops, why is it that their
>weapons technology still seems to be rooted in the 20th century? Machine
>guns? Grenade launchers? Flame throwers? How primitive! Why aren't they
>using phasers/lasers/..., particle beam weapons, whatever, something
>more high-tech? It seems kinda strange that there are so many high-tech
>aspects of the movie, and yet Hicks uses a 12 gauge pump shotgun for
>backup, just like the one I have in my closet at home.
Actually, I thought this was one of the better points. Why should every
sci-fi flick have some kind of phaser/plasma/particle guns? As of
now, these devices as weapons have very little basis in science. I have
no doubt that eventually, these devices will be implemented in this
manner. In my opinion, most sci-fi movies are way ahead of their time.
The authors assume that technology will get lucky. Remember Buck Rogers?
The intro said something like, "By the year 1984, Earth had
launched the last of its major space ships..."
>I have wondered if the movie had a military advisor, since there seem to
>be several weak military aspects of the plot:
>
>1. The smart guns seem much too large and cumbersome to use in confined
> areas.
That's why only two marines had them. Would you rather go into an unknown
situation unprepared or with everything you could get your hands on, just
in case.
> And what's the point? The aliens seem to blow up when hit by
> a (handy, easily manuvered) pulse rifle just as easily as they do
> when hit by a smart gun.
And how were they supposed to know that?
>2. Ripley has the forethought to tape a pulse rifle & a flamer together,
> load up her pockets with flares and tape the locator on top of the
> rifle, but she doesn't think to grab an extra clip for the pulse
> rifle???
I agree with this, but that's a character flaw, not a military weakness.
>3. We have remote-controlled robots today for doing things like exploring
> deep shipwrecks and volcanoes. Doesn't it make sense that the Marines
> going on a bug-hunt would have some type of similar device so that it
> could be used to explore hazardous areas before humans were sent in?
> Something like an unsophisticated version of a Bishop?
Maybe they wanted to utilize the element of surprise.
>4. The Drop Ship drops off the Marines in the compound that has potentially
> been overrun with hostile aliens. Then what does the Drop Ship do -
> it flies a short distance away and lands IN the compound! How stupid!
> I would think that military protocol would mandate that the ship remain
> airborne for safe keeping, or at least land OUTSIDE of the compound.
> Not only that, but then they leave the door to the ship open while they go
> outside and wander around! Geesh, talk about no common sense ...
Yeah, well, it probably wouldn't have made sense to return to the Sulaco,
and besides, Gorman ordered them to stay on station after declaring the
area secure.
>5. No one stays on the Sulaco. I know, the FAQ addresses this, but it
> seems unbelievable that, on a military operation such as this that no
> one would remain on board the mother ship, regardless of how automated
> it was. True, there is a second drop ship but, as Bishop says, he's
> the only one (maybe Ferro and Spunkmeyer also) that can remote-pilot
> the ship down. What happens if Bishop gets wasted?
Remember, the Company was more concerned with profit than people. It
wouldn't make sense to dedicate resources to someone who would most
likely sit around twiddling his/her thumbs.
_.,--,._ \
/~ ' ` ' ,~\ ||
| ____/ ||
,---, ,------|||---MM /'~~---|||------''------,
/ /' `\ _ | ``` WW/ ''' |
| | ~ \_/ -=- Darren W. Scharf -=- \_ _/~\
|\| -=- dsc...@lonestar.utsa.edu -=- `,__/~ \_
|_| _ ________________________ |`i
/~/\~~~/\`\ "Sometimes, | WEYLAND-YUTANI CORP. | |\|
| `~' | Survival | \~~~~\/~~~~\/~~~~/ | "In Space, No | |
| | Isn't | \ / | One Can Hear |\|
| | Enough." | \___/\___/ | You Scream." | |
\_____/ |BUILDING BETTER WORLDS| / /
~^`~~~'~^`'~~""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Aaron Wigley
: 1. The smart guns seem much too large and cumbersome to use in confined
: areas. And what's the point? The aliens seem to blow up when hit by
: a (handy, easily manuvered) pulse rifle just as easily as they do
: when hit by a smart gun.
The smart guns are used for defence, in the movie they were used for
point defence. Put your threatened team there, and the guns covering
another place over there. The guns were placed looking down a corridor.
: 2. Ripley has the forethought to tape a pulse rifle & a flamer together,
: load up her pockets with flares and tape the locator on top of the
: rifle, but she doesn't think to grab an extra clip for the pulse
: rifle???
Ripley ain't military, she was a civilian, with no formal military
training. Perhaps the thought didn't come to her?
: 3. We have remote-controlled robots today for doing things like exploring
: deep shipwrecks and volcanoes. Doesn't it make sense that the Marines
: going on a bug-hunt would have some type of similar device so that it
: could be used to explore hazardous areas before humans were sent in?
: Something like an unsophisticated version of a Bishop?
Perhaps. But today's remote-controlled robots are extremely specialised,
only suitable for a narrow band of use. The marines go into areas where
anything might happen, and specialised equipment that you may not even
need is dead weight. We seem to have found the human form to be suitable
for most things, and well, marines are grunts, expendable. Why spend
money on sophisticated robots, when a cheaper marine will also get the
job done.
,-======================================================================-.
| The Wigs of Oz, | ``No one ever escapes from the Dungeons |
| Aaron Wigley | of Aquila, the townspeople accept that as |
| wi...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | historical fact.'' - _Ladyhawke |
`-======================================================================-'
Keith Vaglienti
Kevin E Ross <kr...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>Somewhere in the Alien(s)(3) faq it mentions ejected cases from the M41.
> You are correct in that caseless ammo is just a projectile and
>propellant. Propellant ignition is usually electrical; that must be the
>"pulse" in "pulse rifle."
>
>That part about the M41 is believable, however:
>1) Look at the size of the magazine on the thing. It supposedly holds
>95 10-millimeter rounds. There must be a pretty impressive (and
>compact) feeding mechanism at work here.
Well, the H&K G-11 assault rifle is an existing weapon (even if it is still
in prototype stage [at least it was the last time I heard]) that fires
caseless ammunition. It has a very impressive rate of fire. At its
highest rate, which would be the three round burst setting, the third round
will leave the barrel before the shooter feels the recoil from the first
round. The gun is a bullpup design, just like the Aliens pulse rifle, making
it very compact despite having a 100 round magazine. The feed device, while
more complex than that of a standard automatic firearm, is remarkably simple.
The rounds are held in the stock in a vertical, rather than horizontal,
position. The feed device is a rotating block with a hole running through
it. As the hole rotates into the vertical, a round feeds from the magazine
into the block. It continues rotating until horizontal, which is in-line
with the barrel, at which point it fires. Caseless ammo means no casing
to extract so the now empty block continues its rotation so the next round
can feed into the other end of the hole.
As an interesting note, it was found that a square cross section for the
propellant was the most efficient form so caseless rounds are square rather
than round, though the bullets are still cylindrical.
>2) The LEDs showing "rounds remaining" are on the side of the gun, so
>the camera gets a good look at them, but the shooter doesn't.
You don't really want the rounds remaining indicator where you can watch it
while shooting. In a combat situation you probably wouldn't want the
distraction. You also don't want to use LEDs because they would be a
distinct disadvantage in certain situations. Low light situations much
like the marines found themselves in in Aliens. Under those conditions
you don't want any form of light source in close proximity to your eyes.
It makes it difficult to see anything else. It also makes it easier for
the bad guys to spot your position. Probably the best solution would be to
have an unlighted display which could be illuminated by pressing a
conveniently located button.
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear
arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
government." -- Thomas Jefferson
--
Keith Vaglienti
bad...@starbase.NeoSoft.com
akam...@eciad.bc.ca
: If the technology exists in ALIENS to be able to do things like put
: people in suspended animation and build Bishops, why is it that their
: weapons technology still seems to be rooted in the 20th century? Machine
: guns? Grenade launchers? Flame throwers? How primitive! Why aren't they
: using phasers/lasers/..., particle beam weapons, whatever, something
: more high-tech? It seems kinda strange that there are so many high-tech
: aspects of the movie, and yet Hicks uses a 12 gauge pump shotgun for
: backup, just like the one I have in my closet at home.
If it ain't broke don't fix it....
See Rec.arts.sf.science for a discussion of alternative weapons types such
as lasers etc vs projectile weapons.
By the way.... why don't we have something more 'high tech' than
the wheel?... 'cause it works. ;}
J.Aaron Kambeitz
Gary Riley
(Eric Gross) wrote:
> >3. We have remote-controlled robots today for doing things like exploring
> > deep shipwrecks and volcanoes. Doesn't it make sense that the Marines
> > going on a bug-hunt would have some type of similar device so that it
> > could be used to explore hazardous areas before humans were sent in?
> > Something like an unsophisticated version of a Bishop?
>
> Perhaps so, perhaps not. But even today, with some sophisticated sensors
> and equipment around, every time you send out a patrol you don't
> necessarily give them the kitchen sink. Also, you are again
> partially presupposing that they know exactly what the situation is, how
> dangerous it might be and exactly what's required. As far as official policy
> is concerned, the aliens aren't even confirmed to exist. Also, if they have
> an "unsophisticated Bishop" type android/robot to do this kind of dirty work,
> then by logical extension you could ask why they don't just send out androids
> to do ANY potential dirty work, ala BLADERUNNER and the use of
> replicants. However, this would really kill a lot of the charm of the
STORY.
Speaking of sophisticated sensors, I thought it was pretty silly that in
Alien the motion sensors provide absolutely no information about elevation.
The alien caught Dallas because of this, and yet, 70 years later, even
sillier, they still don't have a motion sensor that displays elevation
information.
Gary Riley
Gary Riley
(Darren W. Scharf) wrote:
The great thing about using projectile/explosion based weapons in the
future is that the writers can't use lame plot devices like having all
the phasers rendered inoperable because of charged tachyon fields or
some other technobabble excuse. Watch a bunch of Star Trek episodes and
count the number of times a character would have been better off with
an automatic rifle than a phaser.
Gary Riley
Darren W. Scharf
>Randy Winney (rawi...@dal.mobil.com) wrote:
>: 1. The smart guns seem much too large and cumbersome to use in confined
>: areas. And what's the point? The aliens seem to blow up when hit by
>: a (handy, easily manuvered) pulse rifle just as easily as they do
>: when hit by a smart gun.
>
>The smart guns are used for defence, in the movie they were used for
>point defence. Put your threatened team there, and the guns covering
>another place over there. The guns were placed looking down a corridor.
No, those were the sentry guns. The smart guns are the big-ass ones that
Vasquez and Drake sported.
Darren W. Scharf
watch it again, but a friend of mine did. He said that it added on a
scene to the end which we had not seen at the theater. After Connor steps
into the beam and blows up the top of the building, it shows him talking
to that girl and looking up at the stars. She asks him which one is his
and he points to a star and says "See that one by the moon, that's where
I'm going." Then he turns transparent with a blue aura and floats up in the
air. He asks her to come with him and she says, "You know I can't." Then
he says, "Sure you can. It's a can of magic." And then she takes his
hand and rises up into the air glowing too. Then they both sort of warp
out into space.
I can see why they would choose to cut this scene, but I'm wondering if
it was cut from all versions or if anyone else knows anything about it.
Shadow Weaver
>Actually, I thought this was one of the better points. Why should every
>sci-fi flick have some kind of phaser/plasma/particle guns? As of
[Odd how im always quoting you. :) ]
In the 'directors cut', on the dropship, Hudson brags to Ripley about how they
have a 'partical beam <somthing or other>' on the APC that can 'VWASSH! FRY A
WHOLE CITY WITH THIS SUCKER!' - The technology is there, they just chose not
to bring those types of hand weapons along for some reason (Probably because
they knew they didn't want Star Wars effects in it - Or it would be much
easier to 'relate' to with weapons we're kind of familiar with.).
Im glad they used projectile weapons, it made everything more intense, plus
they sounded neat. :)
If i remember right, in the books they also have laser type weapons, but chose
not to use those either for hand weapons because projectile weapons get the
job done quicker and easier.
:: djam...@students.wisc.edu ..I dreamt of a
:::::: ::: ::: ship to bring
:::::: :: :: her..
:: : :
The Taxsponge from Hell
> f94...@matar.tdb.uu.se (Leif Eriksson) writes:
> > That's because 10 mm explosive tipped caseless doesn't exist yet, so they
> > had to use standard 9mm submachine guns for the wepaons.
> >
> > I think the M41A is based on the French MAT49 submachinegun, although I am
> > not sure. The smartgun is based on the German WWII MG42 machine gun, and
> > if you look closely you can see the ammo-belt hanging from it in several
> > shots, most notably when Drake runs out ot ammo. You actually see the belt
> > disappearing...
> >
> > The flamers are based on the American M16 rifle, by the way.
> If the technology exists in ALIENS to be able to do things like put
> people in suspended animation and build Bishops, why is it that their
> weapons technology still seems to be rooted in the 20th century? Machine
> guns? Grenade launchers? Flame throwers? How primitive! Why aren't they
> using phasers/lasers/..., particle beam weapons, whatever, something
> more high-tech? It seems kinda strange that there are so many high-tech
> aspects of the movie, and yet Hicks uses a 12 gauge pump shotgun for
> backup, just like the one I have in my closet at home.
For the same reason why we still use ballistic weaponry several hundred
years after the advent of the gun: they're cheap and incredibly
effective. You would only want to supplant these weapons with "laser"
technology if it could be shown that they were cheaper or comparable, and
more efficient.
Just to contradict myself, however, the Smartguns are (according to the
script) "Phazed plasma" guns - Cameron is in love with the idea of
phazed-plasma weapons, check out Terminator. :)
> I have wondered if the movie had a military advisor, since there seem to
> be several weak military aspects of the plot:
> 1. The smart guns seem much too large and cumbersome to use in confined
> areas.
This is true. They are too large for effective subterrainian
in-fighting, but they were a standard marine troop with standard
equipment. Another thing is that large weapons like the Smarkguns are
only used for support-fire, rather than up-front/"in your face" tactics.
They're too cumbersome, for starters. :)
> And what's the point? The aliens seem to blow up when hit by
> a (handy, easily manuvered) pulse rifle just as easily as they do
> when hit by a smart gun.
Check it out again. The aliens are torn apart by the Smartguns, but the
pulse rifles kill them with far less spectacle.
> 2. Ripley has the forethought to tape a pulse rifle & a flamer together,
> load up her pockets with flares and tape the locator on top of the
> rifle, but she doesn't think to grab an extra clip for the pulse
> rifle???
Yeah. I agree. Definitely dumb. :)
> 3. We have remote-controlled robots today for doing things like exploring
> deep shipwrecks and volcanoes. Doesn't it make sense that the Marines
> going on a bug-hunt would have some type of similar device so that it
> could be used to explore hazardous areas before humans were sent in?
> Something like an unsophisticated version of a Bishop?
Yes, but that detracts from some of the humanity of the story - remember,
ALIENS is a drama, not a documentary. It's about people and it's about
conflict.
> 4. The Drop Ship drops off the Marines in the compound that has potentially
> been overrun with hostile aliens. Then what does the Drop Ship do -
> it flies a short distance away and lands IN the compound! How stupid!
> I would think that military protocol would mandate that the ship remain
> airborne for safe keeping, or at least land OUTSIDE of the compound.
> Not only that, but then they leave the door to the ship open while they go
> outside and wander around! Geesh, talk about no common sense ...
Just before the dropship releases the APC onto LV-426 for the first time
Gorman tells Ferro that he wants an "immediate dust-off on my clear then
stand-station," which I assume to mean hover about in support until the
all-clear is given.
> 5. No one stays on the Sulaco. I know, the FAQ addresses this, but it
> seems unbelievable that, on a military operation such as this that no
> one would remain on board the mother ship, regardless of how automated
> it was. True, there is a second drop ship but, as Bishop says, he's
> the only one (maybe Ferro and Spunkmeyer also) that can remote-pilot
> the ship down. What happens if Bishop gets wasted?
True. You would have thought they could afford an extra or two, huh. :)
But still, exceptional detail for such a low-budget sci-fi film!
= 2 cents
Taxsponge
******************************************************************************
* Taxsponge: more a name than a way of life *
* "I know what you do in the dark, you dirty little boy" *
******************************************************************************
Today's quote: "Some legends live forever. Others die on the toilet."
-- MC Sheppard, 1995
Orchun Kolcu
The Taxsponge from Hell <u92...@student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>On 10 Mar 1995, Randy Winney wrote:
>
>> And what's the point? The aliens seem to blow up when hit by
>> a (handy, easily manuvered) pulse rifle just as easily as they do
>> when hit by a smart gun.
>
>Check it out again. The aliens are torn apart by the Smartguns, but the
>pulse rifles kill them with far less spectacle.
>
alien Hudson wastes and the three Ripley takes out. The main thing about the
smartgun is it's auto-aiming. BTW, I've always felt that they were
incapaciated, as opposed to dead, when hit by the pulse rifle. Like, they only
needed a couple of hours to heal themselves...
>> 4. The Drop Ship drops off the Marines in the compound that has potentially
>> been overrun with hostile aliens. Then what does the Drop Ship do -
>> it flies a short distance away and lands IN the compound! How stupid!
>> I would think that military protocol would mandate that the ship remain
>> airborne for safe keeping, or at least land OUTSIDE of the compound.
>> Not only that, but then they leave the door to the ship open while they
go
>> outside and wander around! Geesh, talk about no common sense ...
>
>Just before the dropship releases the APC onto LV-426 for the first time
>Gorman tells Ferro that he wants an "immediate dust-off on my clear then
>stand-station," which I assume to mean hover about in support until the
>all-clear is given.
Yeah, the dropship probably lands to unload supplies after Gorman announces
it's secure. The immediate dust off after landing is a clear sign of trying to
keep the dropship away from the danger.
>> 5. No one stays on the Sulaco. I know, the FAQ addresses this, but it
>> seems unbelievable that, on a military operation such as this that no
>> one would remain on board the mother ship, regardless of how automated
>> it was. True, there is a second drop ship but, as Bishop says, he's
>> the only one (maybe Ferro and Spunkmeyer also) that can remote-pilot
>> the ship down. What happens if Bishop gets wasted?
>
>True. You would have thought they could afford an extra or two, huh. :)
Although I agree somebody should have stayed onboard, I don't think Bishop
would have been required to bring the ship down if the comm equipment on board
the APC wasn't gone.
>But still, exceptional detail for such a low-budget sci-fi film!
I agree. Absolutely brilliant and incomparable to any other movie in attention
to detail.
/\\___//\/^\"What is our defense policy Bernard ?" "To defend Britain ?"
///*ooo*\\\ |"No, Bernard. To make people *believe* Britain is defended."
//| |\\/ "The Russians ?" "The British! The Russians know it is not!"
||\\ //|| Orchun Kolcu, signing off.
Keith Vaglienti
Johan Dackner <jo...@lotta.ne.kth.se> wrote:
>In article <3jp587$9...@sun4.bham.ac.uk>, Hudson <G.Ke...@bham.ac.uk> writes:
>> Gorman says the M41A Pulse rifles fire '10mm explosive tipped caseless'
>> rounds, now, from my understanding the 'case' of a rifle round is the bit
>> that contains the charge. So how come when Vas is firing in the airducts
>> near the end of the film you can clearly see cartridge cases ejecting
>> from the pulse rifle??. Is this an error in the film or have I got it all
>> wrong.
>> This has probably been done to death but i missed it.
>
>Actually, it hasn't been discussed to death, and you're right, by Jove.
>Isn't the jacket the part which surrounds the lead center of the bullet?
>(As in "full metal jacket"). In the Aliens case, it seems they should fire
>"10mm explosive tipped jacketless", but that doesn't sound as cool.
It doesn't sound as cool because it isn't. ;-) A jacketless bullet would
be nothing new. I can go down to my local sporting goods store and buy
bullets with no jackets. The purpose of the jacket is, generally, to control
how the bullet deforms on impact. A full metal jacket is used to keep the
soft lead from flattening out when it strikes something, thus improving its
armor piercing capabilities.
Caseless ammunition, on the other hand, is on the cutting edge of weapons
technology. One of the big limits on how fast a gun can fire is how fast
a bullet's shell casing can be extracted after the round is fired, thus
clearing the chamber for the next round. With caseless ammunition you don't
have to worry about it because there isn't a casing to extract.
The reason you see shell casing flying out of the pulse rifles is quite
simple. The easiest way for the special effects crew to simulate a
slugthrower is to use a real gun firing blanks. This is how Jon Eric Hexum
and Brandon Lee died. For an SF movie, they just stick a few "greeblies" on
the gun to make it look futuristic. Its a lot simpler than actually
producing a number of "assault rifles" that have realistic muzzle blasts.
However, because all contemporary guns that are capable of firing caseless
ammo are experimental prototypes, they couldn't get any, especially in
quantity, for use in the film. Thus they had to use standard guns firing
standard ammunition. Thats why you see casings flying out of guns that are
supposed to be firing caseless ammo.
--
Keith Vaglienti
bad...@starbase.NeoSoft.com
Jackie Roman
anyone agree? -jackie
Leif Eriksson
Randy Winney <rawi...@dal.mobil.com> wrote:
[SNIP]
>
>I have wondered if the movie had a military advisor, since there seem to
>be several weak military aspects of the plot:
>
>1. The smart guns seem much too large and cumbersome to use in confined
> areas. And what's the point? The aliens seem to blow up when hit by
> a (handy, easily manuvered) pulse rifle just as easily as they do
> when hit by a smart gun.
>
And, as the smartguns probably are the equivavlent of the nowadays GPMG, that
is, a close support wepaon for the squad, why do they send them in first???
Yeah, right. If they walk into an ambush they would lose their support at
once.
I agree with you on the other accounts as well, except for this:
The most efficient way to kill a man is to deliver a high level of energy.
The is easiest way to do that is to hit him with a mass at a high velocity.
The formula goes like this: E=mass*square of velocity devided by two.
As you can see, the velocity is much more important than mass, which is
the cause of the on going trend towards smaller and smaller calibre guns,
with high velocity cartridges.
Gregory Turenchalk (GD 1999)
: 2. Ripley has the forethought to tape a pulse rifle & a flamer together,
: load up her pockets with flares and tape the locator on top of the
: rifle, but she doesn't think to grab an extra clip for the pulse
: rifle???
Are you positive that this is a flaw? Was there even an extra clip
available for her to take? There is a scene where Hicks gives a rundown
of the equipment that is salvageable after the dropship crashes and burns
and I don't remember if he gave an ammo count, but it doesn't seem
implausible to me that Ripley used up the last of the pulse rifle ammo. A
lot of ammo was used by the other marines before the aliens claimed them
and many of them probably went down taking spare ammo clips with them.
Gregory S. Turenchalk
Steve
Thats true, but Ripley restocks her arms on the second dropship, fresh
off of the Sulaco. This one is completely stocked up on weapons and
ammo, so she should have had as much ammo available as she wanted. She
most likely didn't expect to run into anything she couldn't handle
with a flamer and 100 pulse rifle rounds; remember that she had never
been in the nest before (only inside the APC), and had no knowledge of
the queen and eggs, which is where she used up her ammo.
S
Vicke Dovheden
> f94...@matar.tdb.uu.se (Leif Eriksson) writes:
> >
> > That's because 10 mm explosive tipped caseless doesn't exist yet, so they
> > had to use standard 9mm submachine guns for the wepaons.
> >
> > I think the M41A is based on the French MAT49 submachinegun, although I am
> > not sure. The smartgun is based on the German WWII MG42 machine gun, and
> > if you look closely you can see the ammo-belt hanging from it in several
> > shots, most notably when Drake runs out ot ammo. You actually see the belt
> > disappearing...
> >
> > The flamers are based on the American M16 rifle, by the way.
> >
> If the technology exists in ALIENS to be able to do things like put
> people in suspended animation and build Bishops, why is it that their
> weapons technology still seems to be rooted in the 20th century? Machine
> guns? Grenade launchers? Flame throwers? How primitive! Why aren't they
> using phasers/lasers/..., particle beam weapons, whatever, something
> more high-tech? It seems kinda strange that there are so many high-tech
> aspects of the movie, and yet Hicks uses a 12 gauge pump shotgun for
> backup, just like the one I have in my closet at home
Well, it is possible that the authors/director were trying to be
scientifically reasonable. The problems with phasers/lasers/etc are
that they would require one hell of a power source. This would, in spite
of technological advancement, probably be far too heavy to carry around.
Another problem with lasers is their optical system, which can be quite
complex. It is a large difference with modern lasers aimed at blinding
people on the battle field, and lasers capable of burn/cut through solid
steel. So, we will probably have to live with weapons not too far from
todays design.
[Snipped a lot of good questions about the military planning in Aliens]
> --
> Randy Winney rawi...@dal.mobil.com
> Mobil Exploration & Producing Technology Center
> Dallas, Texas
--
|---------------|Vicke Dovheden
| ,,, |vi...@astro.lu.se
| (o o) |
|~oOO--(_)--OOo~|
Randy Winney
[discussion of weapons snipped]
>
> Well, it is possible that the authors/director were trying to be
> scientifically reasonable. The problems with phasers/lasers/etc are
> that they would require one hell of a power source. This would, in spite
> of technological advancement, probably be far too heavy to carry around.
> Another problem with lasers is their optical system, which can be quite
> complex. It is a large difference with modern lasers aimed at blinding
> people on the battle field, and lasers capable of burn/cut through solid
> steel.
These points are all true if you argue the issue from the point of view of
today's technology, but remember that it should be argued from the point
of view of what technology is plausible and reasonable to expect based
on other examples of technology in the movie.
If this culture can engage in interstellar space travel, put people in
suspended animation, and (most importantly) build a Bishop, then it seems
logical and reasonable to me to assume that their Marine weapons technology
should have been more advanced than was demonstrated in the movie. As
another poster mentioned, perhaps it was more advanced (i.e., Hudson's
comment about a particle beam weapon), but they simply didn't happen to
use those weapons in this encounter.
Randy Winney
>
> Thats true, but Ripley restocks her arms on the second dropship, fresh
> off of the Sulaco. This one is completely stocked up on weapons and
> ammo, so she should have had as much ammo available as she wanted. She
> most likely didn't expect to run into anything she couldn't handle
> with a flamer and 100 pulse rifle rounds; remember that she had never
> been in the nest before (only inside the APC), and had no knowledge of
> the queen and eggs, which is where she used up her ammo.
>
reload with a fresh clip? Seems like she would have thought of it ...
A more plausible plot could have gone like this: Ripley brings another
clip with her, but when she tries to reload in the egg chamber she fumbles
it and drops the clip, mutters "Oh shit!", and starts firing grenades.
Peter R. Murphy
>
>In article <3jp587$9...@sun4.bham.ac.uk>, Hudson <G.Ke...@bham.ac.uk> writes:
>> Gorman says the M41A Pulse rifles fire '10mm explosive tipped caseless'
>> rounds, now, from my understanding the 'case' of a rifle round is the bit
>> that contains the charge. So how come when Vas is firing in the airducts
>> near the end of the film you can clearly see cartridge cases ejecting
>> from the pulse rifle??. Is this an error in the film or have I got it all
>> wrong.
>> This has probably been done to death but i missed it.
Actually, you are correct. That is one of the bloopers that I know of in
the film. Just so you know the quote was "10mm explosive tipped caseless,
light armor piercing rounds." This doesn't make a lot of sense to me since
from what I know, bullets are either explosive tipped, or armor piercing.
Explosive tipped rounds explode on impact, where as, armor piercing are
designed to penetrate armor. The only explosive armor piercing shells that
I am aware of are anti-tank rounds, and those are essentially "two-stage"
shells. Maybe the technology in Aliens is such that they could incorporate
both features into one round. However, I would think that rounds with any
sort of armor piercing capability would go through the aliens before having
a chance to explode.
Just my two cents worth.
Peter R. Murphy
prm...@prin.edu
Principia College
If the only constant is change, and history is cyclical,
then the world is constantly changing, and we are all going in circles.
Randy Winney
> relatively simple and inexpensive. Hand-held lasers of sufficient power to
> serve as weapons are probably going to be difficult to build, at best, even a
> couple of hundred years into the future, barring some really, really radical
> advances in power sources.
More difficult than building a Bishop? It seems that arguments about the
technology of weapon XYZ being too difficult to conquer don't sound
very convincing when you've got a Bishop (that engages in inter-stellar
space travel) in the plot.
> are dealing here with essentially light infantry. In the world of the
> Colonial Marines we don't know what a heavy weapons unit might carry . . . .
> As regards the shotgun, see my point above -- they are *NASTY* weapons
> and there is little that is more effective in a close fight. Plenty of
> soldiers in Vietnam carried their own "non-reg" weapons into the
> field for just such occassions.
I agree with these points, but it still would have been nice if they had
at least 1 hi-tech weapon, in addition to their standard ones.
> cumbersome. A lot of medium to heavy machine guns are heavy and
> cumbersome. Some heavies take a crew to operate, and are dissasembled
> when carried, set up when needed. It doesn't mean you don't take them
> along to the party, though . . . you WANT to have that firepower
> around. Third, you are presupposing that these people knew everything
> about engaging these specific aliens in combat before they went.
No, but they did know they were going on a bug hunt (at least Gorman did)
and they surely knew that given the layout of the plant, they could be
trying to manuver in narrow hallways and stairwells.
> operation seems clearly a real low priority on the Marine's docket. I mean,
> you send a single squad out, commanded by a newbie Lt. who's only on his
> second actual combat drop. It's obvious that as far as command is concerned,
> this is nothing more than sending out a patrol to check on some
> nickle-and-dime, middle-of-nowhere shake'n'bake op whose transmitter's gone
> dead. If the military had been really serious, they would have sent an
> experienced officer and a larger command, likely a company or so, with some
> really serious fire support.
A good point I hadn't thought of ...
IMRAN BIN MOHAMED NOOR
: A couple of weeks ago this movie came on TV. I didn't have the stomach to
As long as I can recall, this dumb scene was also shown when H2 was shown
on our local TV back here in S'pore!!
Jason Proctor
(Darren W. Scharf) writes:
>
> In the 'directors cut', on the dropship, Hudson brags to Ripley about
how they
> have a 'partical beam <somthing or other>' on the APC that can 'VWASSH! FRY A
> WHOLE CITY WITH THIS SUCKER!' - The technology is there, they just chose not
> to bring those types of hand weapons along for some reason
the marines themselves. Note the turret-mounted gun on top of the APC that
slides behind it when going through the doorway (rather posey don't you
think), which is used in the book to blow nasty aliens off the top of the
vehicle during the escape from the terraforming station. This isn't used
at all in the film - it gets showed off, then wasted, in short order!
> Im glad they used projectile weapons, it made everything more intense, plus
> they sounded neat. :)
Projectile weapons are still the best way to incapacitate a "human-like"
enemy, due to the effects of kinetic energy and hydrostatic shock. Burning
holes in people (or aliens) may be fun and aesthetically impressive, but
it won't necessarily stop them any quicker. As a relevant but not similar
example, witness the difference between hitting someone with a .357 magnum
and a .45 ACP round - the .357 rips through you very fast, but a .45 moves
slower and does more damage and shock.
> If i remember right, in the books they also have laser type weapons, but
chose
> not to use those either for hand weapons because projectile weapons get the
> job done quicker and easier.
IIRC in the book, the smartguns are plasma weapons, but the pulse rifles
are the same as they are in the film. Plasma weapons are noisy and fun,
but unless they've done amazing things with the power requirements (in
Traveller, PGMPs still require backpacks in the year 5xxx) I think I'd
rather hit something with large amounts of lead - you never know, they
might be as resistant to plasma as they are to CN20 nerve gas (sorry,
Vasquez).
Who said they used 9mm submachineguns in the film? Hey guys, this is the
movies - if they wanted the pulse rifles just to fire, and not to emit
streams of empty cases as well, they could do that easy enough. They don't
have to use "real" weapons at all.
Smartguns based on MG42s? Get with the program. FWIW I think they designed
the weapons from scratch to look good.
J
--
~jason/.sig: no such file or directory
Jason Proctor
(Darren W. Scharf) wrote:
>It's a can of magic.
Oh come on, it's a KIND of magic.
Plus, H2 and H3 are a KIND of shite. The smelly kind.
Andrew Miller
> If the technology exists in ALIENS to be able to do things like put
> people in suspended animation and build Bishops, why is it that their
> weapons technology still seems to be rooted in the 20th century? Machine
> guns? Grenade launchers? Flame throwers? How primitive! Why aren't they
> using phasers/lasers/..., particle beam weapons, whatever, something
> more high-tech? It seems kinda strange that there are so many high-tech
> aspects of the movie, and yet Hicks uses a 12 gauge pump shotgun for
> backup, just like the one I have in my closet at home.
I think you've just found one of the cyberpunk elements of the
movie...
--
Andrew Miller - Newcastle, Australia - dr...@crow.hna.com.au
"I've seen the future, and this is how it begins" - Everything's Cool, PWEI
Mantissa - Skinny Puppy - Caligula - PWEI - Scary Mother - Front 242 - RevCo
Def FX - Ministry - Depeche Mode - Kaktus Mantras - Frontline Assembly - NIN
Eric Gross
>> relatively simple and inexpensive. Hand-held lasers of sufficient power to
>> serve as weapons are probably going to be difficult to build, at best, even a
>> couple of hundred years into the future, barring some really, really radical
>> advances in power sources.
> More difficult than building a Bishop? It seems that arguments about the
> technology of weapon XYZ being too difficult to conquer don't sound
> very convincing when you've got a Bishop (that engages in inter-stellar
> space travel) in the plot.
A good point. However, this is the ultimate problem of building any
theoretical future technology in science fiction. You have FTL capability but
not this? You can do this and not that? Androids that are nearly
indistinguishable from humans represent an amazing level of technology, you
are correct. Today both the technologies of hand-held laser weaponry and
androids are out of our reach.Will advances in both fields occur
simultaneously? Who knows. Perhaps in the Aliens time-frame there are laser
weapons, but due to size/efficieny problems they are not optimum for light
infantry -- they are something more akin to a crew-served weapon. Again, who
really knows? Regardless, the fact remains that projectile weapons will
remain effective, efficient and relatively simple -- the perfect light
infantry weapon. As portrayed in the film the pulse-rifles were powerful
weapons, given their size.
>> are dealing here with essentially light infantry. In the world of the
>> Colonial Marines we don't know what a heavy weapons unit might carry . . . .
>> As regards the shotgun, see my point above -- they are *NASTY* weapons
>> and there is little that is more effective in a close fight. Plenty of
>> soldiers in Vietnam carried their own "non-reg" weapons into the
>> field for just such occassions.
>I agree with these points, but it still would have been nice if they had
>at least 1 hi-tech weapon, in addition to their standard ones.
Well, I would say that they do have some high-tech weaponry. The sentry guns
are pretty bad; the smart-guns are plasma weapons; the APC packs a particle
beam cannon, and the drop-ships carry some mean-looking ordnance plus who
knows what the Sulaco has onboard. Again, I make the point that you are NOT
dealing with the full spectrum of Colonial Marine military power here -- you
have a single platoon (which is squad sized) on a scout mission. They are not
going to be carrying everything in the military's inventory. Take a look at
any current cavalry scout/marine recon/light infantry scout unit -- they have
some impressive stuff, but they don't carry EVERYTHING.
>> cumbersome. A lot of medium to heavy machine guns are heavy and
>> cumbersome. Some heavies take a crew to operate, and are dissasembled
>> when carried, set up when needed. It doesn't mean you don't take them
>> along to the party, though . . . you WANT to have that firepower
>> around. Third, you are presupposing that these people knew everything
>> about engaging these specific aliens in combat before they went.
>No, but they did know they were going on a bug hunt (at least Gorman did)
>and they surely knew that given the layout of the plant, they could be
>trying to manuver in narrow hallways and stairwells.
Again, you would still be carrying the weapons, even in this environment. In
this marine platoon you have apparently have two squads of four or five
troops. Each squad has a smart gun -- it's the squad's heavy weapon.
Regardless of whether you plan on doing some "urban" or field
combat, you are going to have that weapon along. Medium machine guns
(which is what smart guns effectively function as) can be cumbersome and
unweildy in tight places -- however, they are an invaluable piece of firepower
with small units. You accept their disadvantages because of their advantages.
No one really wants to hump the thing around, but boy do you want it when
things get hot.
Steve
Re: Ripley only bringing along 1 clip of pulse rifle ammo.
> Maybe, but remember in MedLab where Hicks specifically shows her how to
> reload with a fresh clip? Seems like she would have thought of it ...
>
> A more plausible plot could have gone like this: Ripley brings another
> clip with her, but when she tries to reload in the egg chamber she fumbles
> it and drops the clip, mutters "Oh shit!", and starts firing grenades.
Ok, this is fine, but remember that this is an action movie. No matter
how many extra clips of ammo she brought with her, she was still going
to run out before she could finish the queen down there. This happens
to every action hero; Chow Yun-Fat, Arnold, Van Damme, you name it, by
the end of the film, they're out of ammo and have to duke it out with
the villian (except in _A Better Tomorrow II_ I suppose :).
If she had taken two clips of ammo, she would have run out and we would
be asking, why didn't she take three?
S
Keith Vaglienti
Peter R. Murphy <prm...@prin.edu> wrote:
>In article <3jq0aq$l...@news.kth.se>, jo...@lotta.ne.kth.se (Johan Dackner) says:
>>
>>In article <3jp587$9...@sun4.bham.ac.uk>, Hudson <G.Ke...@bham.ac.uk> writes:
>>> Gorman says the M41A Pulse rifles fire '10mm explosive tipped caseless'
>>> rounds, now, from my understanding the 'case' of a rifle round is the bit
>>> that contains the charge. So how come when Vas is firing in the airducts
>>> near the end of the film you can clearly see cartridge cases ejecting
>>> from the pulse rifle??. Is this an error in the film or have I got it all
>>> wrong.
>>> This has probably been done to death but i missed it.
>
>Actually, you are correct. That is one of the bloopers that I know of in
>the film. Just so you know the quote was "10mm explosive tipped caseless,
>light armor piercing rounds." This doesn't make a lot of sense to me since
>from what I know, bullets are either explosive tipped, or armor piercing.
>Explosive tipped rounds explode on impact, where as, armor piercing are
>designed to penetrate armor. The only explosive armor piercing shells that
>I am aware of are anti-tank rounds, and those are essentially "two-stage"
>shells. Maybe the technology in Aliens is such that they could incorporate
>both features into one round. However, I would think that rounds with any
>sort of armor piercing capability would go through the aliens before having
>a chance to explode.
I don't see why they couldn't combine an explosive round with a light armor
piercing round. Its just a matter of fusing the bullet so that it detonates
a fraction of a second after impact instead of at the moment of impact. That
would even solve one of the problems with armor piercing rounds. While an
AP round will punch through armor it will do less damage because the bullet
will deform less and thus cause less hydrostatic shock, which is the main
damage caused by a bullet. The actual penetration wound is relatively
insignificant by comparison. For example, Jon Eric Hexum accidentally
killed himself while clowing around with a gun loaded with blanks. He shot
himself in the head, not realizing that the blank cartridge actually fired
a wad of paper which, at normal ranges, would be perfectly harmless. At
point blank range, however, it struck his temple with considerable force.
Though the paper didn't penetrate his skull the impact imparted sufficient
hydrostatic shock to render him brain dead.
An explosive, light armor piercing round fussed to explode just AFTER it
penetrated would be effective against unarmored targets because the explosion
would still cause a lot of damage. Against armored targets it would be
potentially more devastating because the armor might help contain the
explosion.
"I'm not stupid, I'm not expendable, and I'm not going."
--
Keith Vaglienti
bad...@starbase.NeoSoft.com
Jeffrey Kaplan
: Are you positive that this is a flaw? Was there even an extra clip
: available for her to take? There is a scene where Hicks gives a rundown
: of the equipment that is salvageable after the dropship crashes and burns
It is. When Hicks is giving the inventory, it's what was recovered from
the APV that got tosted when the dropship er... dropped onto it. (BTW,
he counted out 50 rounds for each functional gun.) What Ripley was
taking with her into the atmosphere station, was from the new stores
aboard the second dropship.
--
ttul8r,
Jeffrey Kaplan | Internet: gor...@tiac.net | finger me for PGP key|
Why do I need a .sig file, anyway?
Jeffrey Kaplan
: If this culture can engage in interstellar space travel, put people in
: suspended animation, and (most importantly) build a Bishop, then it seems
: logical and reasonable to me to assume that their Marine weapons technology
: should have been more advanced than was demonstrated in the movie. As
: another poster mentioned, perhaps it was more advanced (i.e., Hudson's
: comment about a particle beam weapon), but they simply didn't happen to
: use those weapons in this encounter.
Maybe they do have the energy weapons, but due to the power requirements,
it's only feasable to use them against huge targets like cities (from the
APV, for example) or other spaceships (from the Sulaco - you did see the
gun emplacements on the Sulaco, didn't you?)
BTW, did you notice that the dropships are armed with missles?
Jeffrey Kaplan
: More difficult than building a Bishop? It seems that arguments about the
: technology of weapon XYZ being too difficult to conquer don't sound
: very convincing when you've got a Bishop (that engages in inter-stellar
: space travel) in the plot.
Why? I find it easier to believe that androids can be built a lot sooner
than the type of high-energy weapons you're talking about.
Markopoulos Stavros
I saw this particular scene when the film was shown here in Greece,
both at the cinema and on TV.
Stavros :)
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Stavros Markopoulos -- mar...@forthnet.gr -- http://www.forthnet.gr/~markop/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
/* May the source be with you!!! */
Vernon R Imrich
rawi...@dal.mobil.com (Randy Winney) writes:
|> If the technology exists in ALIENS to be able to do things like put
|> people in suspended animation and build Bishops, why is it that their
|> weapons technology still seems to be rooted in the 20th century? Machine
|> guns? Grenade launchers? Flame throwers? How primitive! Why aren't they
|> using phasers/lasers/..., particle beam weapons, whatever, something
|> more high-tech? It seems kinda strange that there are so many high-tech
|> aspects of the movie, and yet Hicks uses a 12 gauge pump shotgun for
|> backup, just like the one I have in my closet at home.
Actually, I think this represents some sanity for a change. Every future
writer seems to think that laser guns and flying cars are the inventions
of the future and they're always wrong. There is no "high tech" reason
that cars would suddenly fly or that lasers would be better weapons that
projectile missles. There is a culture of "futurism" that doesn't seem
to base its projections on anything other than the fact that other futurists
have made similar projections. Look at things like washing machines, or
refrigerators, they're basically as good as they're going to be. With all
the massive techno changes of the last century, they're still about the
same as they've always been. Part of this is because they work so well
now. Change has to be motivated by necessity, or advancement. Otherwise
you end up with things like "car fins" which have no aerodynamic benefits
but made everyone think the car was "futuristic" just because airplanes had
fins and airplanes were fast and futuristic.
|> 1. The smart guns seem much too large and cumbersome to use in confined
|> areas. And what's the point? The aliens seem to blow up when hit by
|> a (handy, easily manuvered) pulse rifle just as easily as they do
|> when hit by a smart gun.
Diversification for one. They didn't know what they're going to find.
Best to have weapons for all occasions.
|> 2. Ripley has the forethought to tape a pulse rifle & a flamer together,
|> load up her pockets with flares and tape the locator on top of the
|> rifle, but she doesn't think to grab an extra clip for the pulse
|> rifle???
I figured they were low on ammo from the moment their sealed area was
breached. All of the characters were running low if I recall -- perhaps
because they were cut off from their support ship fairly early on.
|> 3. We have remote-controlled robots today for doing things like exploring
|> deep shipwrecks and volcanoes. Doesn't it make sense that the Marines
|> going on a bug-hunt would have some type of similar device so that it
|> could be used to explore hazardous areas before humans were sent in?
|> Something like an unsophisticated version of a Bishop?
Well, yeah, but then you take the human element out of it. If you're really
going to be a stickler, the whole concept of space exploration will probably
only develop along these lines, no people just robots. That's certainly been
the most profitable method so far. Robots are cheap and expendable compared
to humans (who have to bring along a good deal of their own environment just
to live, and have troublesome things like "emotions" to deal with in such
harsh environments). One possible "escape" from this is that the movie is
already loaded with automated processes. That is, there are a few people to
do innately human things, react to new situations, think, etc., but that
the rest is automated (that colony superstructure was huge for less than 100
people). It would be difficult to have military probes do the job when they
would have to encounter stuff that the programmers would never have seen
before. But mainly, you kill the whole movie if you do this too much.
|> 4. The Drop Ship drops off the Marines in the compound that has potentially
|> been overrun with hostile aliens. Then what does the Drop Ship do -
|> it flies a short distance away and lands IN the compound! How stupid!
|> I would think that military protocol would mandate that the ship remain
|> airborne for safe keeping, or at least land OUTSIDE of the compound.
|> Not only that, but then they leave the door to the ship open while they go
|> outside and wander around! Geesh, talk about no common sense ...
This is key to the whole Alien series; no one ever knows fully what they're
up against. Recall that no one really belives that the compound has even
been taken over, just lost contact with it. The audience knows because we
all saw Alien, but only Ripley knows on the screen, and she spends the whole
series trying frutilessly to convince others. There is also the "Vietnam"
underestimation of the enemy concept. The aliens are not humans, so therefore
the human marines ought to be able to kick butt easily. We're better than
every other non human creature we know of. Alien is about the first encounters
where we may not have so much of an edge any more. That is the whole point
that Ripley tries to get the company to see, that these things are too dangerous
to be used like toys for military purposes. The company underestimates them.
|> 5. No one stays on the Sulaco. I know, the FAQ addresses this, but it
|> seems unbelievable that, on a military operation such as this that no
|> one would remain on board the mother ship, regardless of how automated
|> it was. True, there is a second drop ship but, as Bishop says, he's
|> the only one (maybe Ferro and Spunkmeyer also) that can remote-pilot
|> the ship down. What happens if Bishop gets wasted?
I think the combination of, (1) total underestimation of the enemy,
and (2) general automation of all the systems in the "Alien" future
explain this. Again, people are very expensive. You take only the
very minimum that you need and do all the rest with machines.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| Vernon Imrich | market failure, n. The inabilty of the |
| MIT OE, Rm 5-329b | market to recover from a blow by |
| Cambridge, MA 02139 | intervention. (the Exchange) |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| MIT LP: http://www.mit.edu:8001/activities/libertarians/home.html |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Vernon R Imrich
f94...@hatysa.tdb.uu.se (Leif Eriksson) writes:
|> The formula goes like this: E=mass*square of velocity devided by two.
|> As you can see, the velocity is much more important than mass, which is
|> the cause of the on going trend towards smaller and smaller calibre guns,
|> with high velocity cartridges.
The other main factor is the transfer of energy. A small and fast
projectile cannot impart it's total energy if it passes through
the target. The full energy is imparted only if it breaks apart
and "sticks" to the target on impact (thus the reasoning behind
various tip designs, and some ammo bans for "deadlier" bullets
which impart more of their energy).
Thus the main driving factor behind smaller calibre guns is that the
higher velocity gives you a much longer range. So called "stopping
power" is already easily achieved with bullet tip design, and/or
shot gun style bursts (as someone else noted) whatever the velocity
of the projectile.
It should also be noted that using explosive tipped bullets would
be a violation of current "Geneva Convention" military rules dating
back at least as far as the nineteenth century, when it was observed
that wounding a soldier did the military job well enough (if not better)
than killing him. Explosive tips kill, while regular tips pass
through and wound. Explosive tips of most kind have been banned
ever since they were first thought up. Of course, when the enemy is
not human, who cares about military rules.
Randy Winney
> Randy Winney (rawi...@dal.mobil.com) wrote:
>
> : More difficult than building a Bishop? It seems that arguments about the
> : technology of weapon XYZ being too difficult to conquer don't sound
> : very convincing when you've got a Bishop (that engages in inter-stellar
> : space travel) in the plot.
>
> Why? I find it easier to believe that androids can be built a lot sooner
> than the type of high-energy weapons you're talking about.
>
the lines of power sources. How could they pack enough energy into a
small package? However, what about the welding/cutting torches that the
troops carried? They were quite small (able to be operated with 1 hand) and
yet they were powerful enough to generate quite a bit of heat, so they
must have had very small, powerful energy sources. What about Bishop's
power source? Imagine how much energy he must have expended crawling
through that pipe for an hour. His design must have included a small,
powerful energy source. Someone mentioned there was evidence to support
the claim that the smart guns fired some sort of plasma, which would
require an energy source that was small, yet powerful. So, there seems
to be plenty of evidence that they knew how to pack lots of power into
small packages.
Another problem with the low-tech weapons (pulse rifles, grenades, flame
throwers & shotguns) is that they will only operate in an environment
that has oxygen in the atmosphere (I assume, chemists correct me if I'm
wrong). Otherwise, no propellant burn. This seems to be a rather severe
restriction for a bunch of Space Marines. Seems like their duties could
easily call them into action in a locale that had a non-O2 atmosphere,
in which case I would think they would just strap on a respirator and
rock'n roll. But not if their weapons won't work.
Seems like something like a rifle based on electromagnetic rail gun
technology would be just the ticket. Definitely high tech. Projectile
velocity could be controlled by the operator. It could shoot projectiles
of various masses. It would not require oxygen in the atmosphere to burn
a propellant. And, I'll bet the filmmakers could give it a really neat
sound when it fires ....
Carl Alex Friis Nielsen
>Another problem with the low-tech weapons (pulse rifles, grenades, flame
>throwers & shotguns) is that they will only operate in an environment
>that has oxygen in the atmosphere (I assume, chemists correct me if I'm
The reason that an explosive is able to burn so fast that it can detonate is
that it allready contains the oxygen needed for the combustion, so weapons,
that use chemical propellants and/or warheads, should in principle be able
to work without oxygen (you can even fire firearms under water)
--
-Carl Alex Friis Nielsen (cnie...@cc.gatech.edu)
Jeffrey Kaplan
: The main objections offered against high-energy weapons are usually along
: the lines of power sources. How could they pack enough energy into a
: small package? However, what about the welding/cutting torches that the
We have one-hand welding torches now. They don't use an energy cell.
They use compressed flamable gas. Something like acetelyne (sp?). I'm
sure you've heard of it...
: must have had very small, powerful energy sources. What about Bishop's
: power source? Imagine how much energy he must have expended crawling
: through that pipe for an hour. His design must have included a small,
His power source doesn't have to be as small as a weapon's. You have a
perfect place for it, right where we carry our stomachs, kidneys, livers,
intestines, etc.
However, from personal observation, I think that the androids in the
Alien universe are capable of utilizing the energy stored in food.
Remember Ash? No one knew that he was an android until he was hit upside
the head with a pipe. And Biship also sat down at the dinner table and ate.
: powerful energy source. Someone mentioned there was evidence to support
: the claim that the smart guns fired some sort of plasma, which would
: require an energy source that was small, yet powerful. So, there seems
I though that they simply fired a larger calibre ammo, and the part that
Vasquez unhooked (and then replaced) was simply the electrical connector
for the loader mechinism.
: Another problem with the low-tech weapons (pulse rifles, grenades, flame
: throwers & shotguns) is that they will only operate in an environment
: that has oxygen in the atmosphere (I assume, chemists correct me if I'm
: wrong). Otherwise, no propellant burn. This seems to be a rather severe
: restriction for a bunch of Space Marines. Seems like their duties could
I'm given to understand that todays conventional bullets will fire in a
vacume. The propelent (in theory, anyway) provides its own oxidizer.
The same thing can (and should) be done with military flamethrowers etc.
BTW, did you know that there are flares that work under water? Gee, how
can that be, when water will put out a fire? Because it's designed to
provide its own oxidizer. Same concept.
: Seems like something like a rifle based on electromagnetic rail gun
: technology would be just the ticket. Definitely high tech. Projectile
Sure, it would be neat to have that. But why do it? When you are in a
place where anything can go wrong, and probably will (thanks, Murphy!),
you want your equipment to be simple to operate, and simple to repare
+when+ it breaks, because it will, sooner or later.
Kevin E Ross
> Another problem with the low-tech weapons (pulse rifles, grenades, flame
> throwers & shotguns) is that they will only operate in an environment
> that has oxygen in the atmosphere (I assume, chemists correct me if I'm
> wrong). Otherwise, no propellant burn.
Sorry, not true. (except for the flamethrowers, unless they carry
oxidizer) The most low-tech propellant I can think of, blackpowder,
will burn in a vacuum, or any confined non-ventilated space. Otherwise
the Chinese would have had to develop jet engines for their fireworks.
:) It's made of charcoal, sulfur, and potassium nitrate, and provides
its own fuel and oxidizer. Higher-tech examples would be things like
solid rocket boosters.
Getting conventional guns to function mechanically in space, with
lubricants evaporating left and right, not to mention 400 degree
temperature variations, is another problem altogether.
Kevin
"...there was supposed to be an Earth-shattering kaboom!"
Orchun Kolcu
rawi...@dal.mobil.com (Randy Winney) wrote:
>Another problem with the low-tech weapons (pulse rifles, grenades, flame
>throwers & shotguns) is that they will only operate in an environment
>that has oxygen in the atmosphere (I assume, chemists correct me if I'm
>wrong). Otherwise, no propellant burn. This seems to be a rather severe
>restriction for a bunch of Space Marines. Seems like their duties could
>easily call them into action in a locale that had a non-O2 atmosphere,
>in which case I would think they would just strap on a respirator and
>rock'n roll. But not if their weapons won't work.
environments. A non-O2 atmosphere probably calls for an entirely different
conditions and a lot more than a respirator - a full body suit is more like
it. I think marines function only in alrady populated worlds, thus the
presence of oxygen can be taken for granted.
>Seems like something like a rifle based on electromagnetic rail gun
>technology would be just the ticket. Definitely high tech. Projectile
>velocity could be controlled by the operator. It could shoot projectiles
>of various masses. It would not require oxygen in the atmosphere to burn
>a propellant. And, I'll bet the filmmakers could give it a really neat
>sound when it fires ....
I agree. The lack of standard "star wars/trek" style lasers in Aliens
is very much appreciated. I don't think lasers were not there because of
technological difficulties; it may be that certain trade-offs were necessary.
Look at the size of the smartgun, which is an energy weapon. The pulse rifles
are definitely tiny in comparison, especially if you consider they also
include a grenade launcher. The "motion-tracking" feature of the smart guns is
much more interesting than any "done to death" laser gun could be, if you ask
me. And then, as manypeople have pointed out, there's the question of
efficiency: the laser may simply not be a good alternative to projectile
weapons *shrug*. We should not take it for granted that feature combat will
involve laser guns.
/\\___//\/^\"What is our defense policy Bernard ?" "To defend Britain ?"
///*ooo*\\\ |"No, Bernard. To make people *believe* Britain is defended."
//| |\\/ "The Russians ?" "The British! The Russians know it is not!"
||\\ //|| Orchun Kolcu, signing off.
Paul Rawson
>From: or...@umr.edu (Orchun Kolcu)
>Subject: Re: ALIENS problems (was Re: Explain 10mm Explosive Tipped Caseless)
>Date: Thu, 16 Mar 95 05:33:49 GMT
>In article <3k7kqa$q...@dlsn31.dal.mobil.com>,
> rawi...@dal.mobil.com (Randy Winney) wrote:
>>Another problem with the low-tech weapons (pulse rifles, grenades, flame
>>throwers & shotguns) is that they will only operate in an environment
>>that has oxygen in the atmosphere (I assume, chemists correct me if I'm
>>wrong). Otherwise, no propellant burn.
GRIN
yeah im a chemist and im here to correct you
All solid propellants contain both fuel and oxidant so they do not need air to
burn at all. A bullet will go bang in space no problems at all.
The basic component of all typical solid propellants is nitrocellulose
We used to test bruning rates of gun propellants in both water and a nitrogen
atmosphere, and guess what , it burnt very well ;)
anyways , i hope this helps
> This seems to be a rather severe
>>restriction for a bunch of Space Marines. Seems like their duties could
>>easily call them into action in a locale that had a non-O2 atmosphere,
>>in which case I would think they would just strap on a respirator and
>>rock'n roll. But not if their weapons won't work.
>The colonial marines, however, are definitely not equipped to fight in hostile
>environments. A non-O2 atmosphere probably calls for an entirely different
>conditions and a lot more than a respirator - a full body suit is more like
>it. I think marines function only in alrady populated worlds, thus the
>presence of oxygen can be taken for granted.
>>Seems like something like a rifle based on electromagnetic rail gun
>>technology would be just the ticket. Definitely high tech. Projectile
>>velocity could be controlled by the operator. It could shoot projectiles
>>of various masses.
I agree, a gauss rifle or similar would be much more futuristic and fun to
watch. but wouldnt go BANG :-/
> It would not require oxygen in the atmosphere to burn
>>a propellant
again, you dont need oxygen to burn propellant.
.
Leif Eriksson
Jason Proctor <ja...@svcdudes.com> wrote:
[earlier bit snipped]
>
>Who said they used 9mm submachineguns in the film? Hey guys, this is the
>movies - if they wanted the pulse rifles just to fire, and not to emit
>streams of empty cases as well, they could do that easy enough. They don't
>have to use "real" weapons at all.
>
>Smartguns based on MG42s? Get with the program. FWIW I think they designed
>the weapons from scratch to look good.
>
>J
To begin with, I stated that they used 9mm subs in aliens. I'm not sure,
because they have converted them quite a bit. The fact remains, however,
that you can *see* Vasquez' pulse rifle eject spent casings in the
air-duct sequence. The size and width of the mag suggests 9mm's...
As for the MG42's I'm positive. Although it is probably the new version
converted to fire 7.62 mm rather than the WWII 7.92 mm version. By the
way, the new version is used by the German Army nowadays, and is called MG3.
Why am I rambling about this? Because I like Aliens, and someone asked why
Vasques rifle ejected the casings...
Leif Eriksson, the One and Only.
P.S Cameron isn't the first to use modern weapons in a S/F movie.
Lucas did it in Star Wars. Almost all weapons are 20th century.
The stormtroopers wepaons are British 9mm Sterling submachine guns,
Han's pistol is a Mauser automatic pistol, and the Blaster Rifles
were german MG34's, the predecessor of the MG42. And yes, I'm a gun
addict as well...
Randy Winney
>
> : The main objections offered against high-energy weapons are usually along
> : the lines of power sources. How could they pack enough energy into a
> : small package? However, what about the welding/cutting torches that the
>
> We have one-hand welding torches now. They don't use an energy cell.
> They use compressed flamable gas. Something like acetelyne (sp?). I'm
> sure you've heard of it...
>
welding the MedLab doors shut or when she was cutting through the door
that Burke had locked. I looked more like an electrical arc, which would
imply that the unit had an electrical energy source, not a flammable gas.
The Stranger <petersod@>
OK, I just saw the first movie a couple of weeks ago, and have
questions. I can't find a Highlander FAQ, so if no one has patience with
this, could someone please post it?
Anyway, I already know Mcleod was telepathic but were the other
immortals? And why *was* he anyway? Why'd the Quickening hit Mcleod when
he met Ramirez (or was this the "sensation" immortals get when they come
around?) How could the Prize be Mcleod's when Kane was still out there?
What is he shouting when he gains the rather demonic-looking Prize, right
before "I know everything, I am everything!"? Who'd win between Kurgen and Kane?
Well, that's about it for now. See ya in the funny papers!
dex
wats...@cc.denison.edu
> |> deep shipwrecks and volcanoes. Doesn't it make sense that the Marines
> |> going on a bug-hunt would have some type of similar device so that it
> |> could be used to explore hazardous areas before humans were sent in?
> |> Something like an unsophisticated version of a Bishop?
>
> Well, yeah, but then you take the human element out of it. If you're really
> going to be a stickler, the whole concept of space exploration will probably
> only develop along these lines, no people just robots. That's certainly been
> the most profitable method so far. Robots are cheap and expendable compared
> to humans (who have to bring along a good deal of their own environment just
> to live, and have troublesome things like "emotions" to deal with in such
> harsh environments). One possible "escape" from this is that the movie is
> already loaded with automated processes. That is, there are a few people to
> do innately human things, react to new situations, think, etc., but that
> the rest is automated (that colony superstructure was huge for less than 100
> people). It would be difficult to have military probes do the job when they
> would have to encounter stuff that the programmers would never have seen
> before. But mainly, you kill the whole movie if you do this too much.
I always figured that an android like Bishop was so much more expensive to
build/program, and had so many possibilities for nasty bugs, inflexibility and
what-have-you that it was simpler and cheaper to train humans... I've always
thought of the alien movies as being a kind of dark future, so it would fit
that human life would be cheap. After all the nasty corp is willing to
sacrifice people for an alien specimen-- why not sacrifice a few extra,
cheaper humans who can do the same job with more losses, rather than
androids....
> |> 4. The Drop Ship drops off the Marines in the compound that has potentially
> |> been overrun with hostile aliens. Then what does the Drop Ship do -
> |> it flies a short distance away and lands IN the compound! How stupid!
> |> I would think that military protocol would mandate that the ship remain
> |> airborne for safe keeping, or at least land OUTSIDE of the compound.
> |> Not only that, but then they leave the door to the ship open while they go
> |> outside and wander around! Geesh, talk about no common sense ...
>
> This is key to the whole Alien series; no one ever knows fully what they're
> up against. Recall that no one really belives that the compound has even
> been taken over, just lost contact with it. The audience knows because we
> all saw Alien, but only Ripley knows on the screen, and she spends the whole
> series trying frutilessly to convince others. There is also the "Vietnam"
> underestimation of the enemy concept. The aliens are not humans, so therefore
> the human marines ought to be able to kick butt easily. We're better than
> every other non human creature we know of. Alien is about the first encounters
> where we may not have so much of an edge any more. That is the whole point
> that Ripley tries to get the company to see, that these things are too dangerous
> to be used like toys for military purposes. The company underestimates them.
Aric Watson (Wats...@denison.edu)
Jose' Orozco
Stranger <petersod@<@river.it.gvsu.edu>> writes:
All immortals can "sense" each other,even underwater,now the question
why Connor got the prize while kane was trapped in the cave is
uncertain,but like kane mentions the prize was *never* of connor,somehow
he though he had gained it,but it was an illusion.
now who I'd think would win a Kurgan Vs Kane confrontation
Hell The Kurgan would totally and without any doubt(and any
problem)Demolish Kane,in Highlander I the last fight between Connor and
the Kurgan was nothing short of *impressive*, while in highlander III
the showdown between Connor and Kane disspointed me(poor Kane got his
lungs sliced..hmm pretty hummiliating way to go down, dont ya think?)
-Jose'
Joerg Bretschneider
Organization: Fachhochschule Koeln DVZ (Germany)
Distribution: world
: gor...@max.tiac.net (Jeffrey Kaplan) writes:
: >
: > The main objections offered against high-energy weapons are usually along
: > the lines of power sources. How could they pack enough energy into a
: > small package? However, what about the welding/cutting torches that the
: >
: > We have one-hand welding torches now. They don't use an energy cell.
: > They use compressed flamable gas. Something like acetelyne (sp?). I'm
: > sure you've heard of it...
: >
: I don't recall seeing a flame coming from Vasquez's unit when she was
: welding the MedLab doors shut or when she was cutting through the door
: that Burke had locked. I looked more like an electrical arc, which would
: imply that the unit had an electrical energy source, not a flammable gas.
Well, an acetylene flame is almost invisible. It is blue to violet in color,
making it very difficult to see. A cutting torch (such as the one used to
open the doors) functions as follows:
- The very hot acetylene flame heats up the metal very quickly to over
1000 Degrees.
- Then, (simultaneously) oxygen is sprayed/blown onto this hot spot, and the
metal IGNITES and burns away.
This whole process is VERY fast. At work we cut 5-Inch thick metal plates
with a larger version.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joerg T. Bretschneider (JTB) | University of Cologne, Germany
bk...@aix.dvz.fh-koeln.de | Mechanical Engineering
b100...@hpw1.rrz.uni-koeln.de | +49-2241-78841
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan B. Wood
> |> been overrun with hostile aliens. Then what does the Drop Ship do -
> |> it flies a short distance away and lands IN the compound! How stupid!
> |> I would think that military protocol would mandate that the ship remain
> |> airborne for safe keeping, or at least land OUTSIDE of the compound.
> |> Not only that, but then they leave the door to the ship open while they go
> |> outside and wander around! Geesh, talk about no common sense ...
>
> This is key to the whole Alien series; no one ever knows fully what they're
> up against. Recall that no one really belives that the compound has even
> been taken over, just lost contact with it. The audience knows because we
> all saw Alien, but only Ripley knows on the screen, and she spends the whole
> series trying frutilessly to convince others. There is also the "Vietnam"
> underestimation of the enemy concept. The aliens are not humans, so therefore
> the human marines ought to be able to kick butt easily. We're better than
> every other non human creature we know of. Alien is about the first encounters
> where we may not have so much of an edge any more. That is the whole point
> that Ripley tries to get the company to see, that these things are too dangerous
> to be used like toys for military purposes. The company underestimates them.
True, true, all of it true -- and yet it doesn't answer the original question.
Even if you believe that "there is no real danger", that does not excuse
clear military incompetance. No military doctrine can support the obvious
mistakes made in loosing the dropship. When the area is declared secure, the
dropship may well have been given permission to land, but only an idiot
leaves a major tactical piece of his (or her) arsenal unguarded when in the
field. What of those wonderful motion sensors? A series of those should have
been used to set up a perimiter around the dropship. At the very least the
ship should have been buttoned up when no one was entering/exiting. Then,
when the marines commense a military manuver (investigate the collection of
colonists location signals) the dropship should have been manned and put
into a location of proximity & action (ie: in the air close to the site of
the manuver). Again, at the least the dropship should have been airborne
and ready for quick retrieval once the fire-fight started. Instead, it sat
on the ground (not fully manned & with the door open) until it was all over
and Hicks called for a pickup -- just plain stupid & incompetant. Even
if this was known to be a mere excercise in known terrain in a known
environment (none of which was true in this case) this type of behavior would
not be acceptable. This (IMHO) is the worst part of Aliens, a part that I
find hard to stomach even with disbelief fully suspended.
JBW