[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Interesting hypothetical...

A full clip into the head of a raptor would drop it pretty fast. We are 
not talking about bolt action rifles here. One round might not stop a 
charge, but a concentrated hail of fire would.Military units direct their 
fire. Can only see the raptors on top if they had the total element of 
surprise from ambush. Fortunately we will never see such animals along 
with their environments destroyed by man and in the end, equipped as we 
are today, we would "win" If mass destruction of life can be called winning.

Stephen Faust                   smfaust@edisto.cofc.edu

On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Jonathon Woolf wrote:

> Stephen Faust wrote:
> > 
> > There is very little that can withstand the combined fire power of a
> > modern infantry platoon. The raptors would have to achieve complete
> > surprise from very close quarters to prevail. A unit with a minigun or m
> > - 60 machinegun would reduce a tyrannosaur to bloodly slosh in seconds.A
> > raptor pack would have about the same chance as a group of peasents with
> > hay forks. Considering the speed and agility of birds and , therefore,
> > probably therapods like raptors, I wouldn't want one after me no matter
> > how I was equipped. But a modern military unit is disciplined and would
> > deliver concentrated fire where it would do the most good.
> Ah, the arrogance . . . <G>
> If it ever really happened, the outcome of a raptors-vs-marines battle
> would depend on three things: the terrain, the local plant life and
> other cover, and the ability of the humans to apply the intelligence
> they allegedly have.  Arrogant, overconfident humans in heavy cover --
> ie, standard tropical or dense deciduous forest, on level or gently
> rolling ground -- wouldn't stand a chance no matter how heavily armed
> they were.  (Look at what happened to Muldoon in JP.)  Humans who act as
> if they're hunting other humans wouldn't stand a chance either, nor
> would humans who underestimate the enemy.  Careful, crafty humans that
> use the cover well would have a better than even chance of winning.  In
> the open or in very hilly, rocky country, the humans would also have an
> advantage -- but they'd still have to use it properly.  In any case,
> simply trusting technology is the _wrong_ way to think.  The standard
> M-16 round is a high-velocity 5.56mm solid bullet.  With a rifle and a
> round like that, you would need a heart or brain shot to drop a
> _Deinonychus_ in its tracks.  Even with mushrooming rounds, many animals
> can stay alive and fighting after multiple hits in the body.  An awful
> lot of big-game hunters have made the very lethal mistake of assuming
> that shock from a gut shot would stop an angry lion or bear.  
> -- JSW