Concepts: Today's similarities and differences to the HV

penny wrote:I might be wrong, but I think it is implied in text. IINM that the Shark is supposed to carry the g-torp but that its delivery system wasn't complete???

By implication, the Ghost class is for reconnaissance missions, thus needs no weapons. But the Shark class - if only implied by its namesake, 'Shark' - is slated to be a warship, thus, with weapons. If so, there would be no refit needed since it was originally designed with g-torps in mind.

It might not have to be gutted. There is no reason the launch system can't be built completely on the hull operated by a sliding door like that of a boat bay. The bulk of the torpedo(s) can sit on the outside of the hull.

P.S. G-torps do not need to impart sufficient velocity to clear a ship's wedge and the ship before bringing up the drive. So the launch mechanism might have less problems and a simpler design.

The entirety of the relevant text seems to be:

Mission of Honor wrote:The torpedo’s size made fitting it into magazines and actually firing it awkward, to say the least, and the Sharks had never been intended to deploy it operationally. For that matter, the Sharks themselves had never been supposed to be deployed “operationally.” The Leonard Detweiler class, which had been intended to carry out this operation, had been designed with magazines and launch tubes which would make it possible to stow and fire torpedoes internally, but none of the Detweilers were even close to completion, and it had required the development of an ingenious external rack system to allow the Sharks to use it for Oyster Bay.

Then there's also the statement from SftS that the Sharks "were still essentially prototype units in many ways".

My presumption from that is that Shark design (and likely their start of construction) predated the MAlign designing the graser torp. That's why (in addition to their smaller size; only partway between a BB and DN) Sharks had no ability to carry them internally. That there'd never been any such allowance because when designed the MAlign hadn't foreseen wanting to use such a large and unusually shaped weapon. Instead we know the Sharks were designed as podlayers, carrying pods of Cataphracts. (They likely also have energy mounts; but I don't recall explicit statements to that effect; and may or may not have broadside mounted missile tubes)

However, as the gtorp was being designed and finalized the MAlign probably did modify at least one Shark to carry and deploy at least one gtorp externally for testing purposes (firing tests, weapons integration/targeting tests, etc.). So, I'd thing that that would have been the non-operational use they'd previously deployed them for. (After all, there'd be no need to include the qualification "operationally" if no Shark had ever previously been intended to deploy one).

Then when Oyster Bay came up before the LDs were ready the MAlign likely took whatever external pylon weapons testing and certification mount they'd come up with and jammed as many as practical onto each Shark. (I'm assuming the gtorp testing happened even before they started seriously looking at OB; rather than having to run a crash weapons test program in addition to hurriedly modifying Sharks for operational use)

But I didn't interpret anything in that quote as the MAlign having a roadmap for giving their existing Sharks an internal magazine and/or launch system for gtorps.


As for your suggestion, what would be the benefit of a torpedo sitting mostly outside the hull vs the current ingenious external rack system; where it's entirely outside the hull?

You still wouldn't have a magazine, so wouldn't seem to be carrying more torpedoes. But now you have to relocate whatever used to sit on, or for several meters behind, that long stretch of hull (assuming it's like a conformal, semi-recessed, air-to-air missile and so its long axis pointed the same way as the ship's; rather than like a sub-launched ballistic missile were it's mounted perpendicular to the ship). That's still quite a bit of work over the existing fully external rack and I'm not seeing the benefit.
Though you're likely right that you don't need the high velocity grav drivers of a missile launcher just to launch a gtorp; but you still need some unknown safety clearance around each spider emitter's path (they're not going to be as destructive as a wedge, but anything described as almost able to be an ad-hoc very short ranged weapon isn't going to good things it if clips the mothership's hull.) I don't know if the torp can use the emitters of the 1 or 2 drive skegs not pointed towards the ship to crab itself sideways far enough to clear their mutual drive exclusion zones (however big those might be), or if it needs to be launched with enough momentum to coast clear while the ship drifts (or accelerate) away, but either would allow fairly low performance launch mechanisms. (And you're not likely to need to tightly salvo gtorp launches, even once the LDs with their internal launch tubes come on line -- so you also don't need to quickly get one clear before the next is ready to launch)

penny wrote:I might be wrong, but I think it is implied in text. IINM that the Shark is supposed to carry the g-torp but that its delivery system wasn't complete???

By implication, the Ghost class is for reconnaissance missions, thus needs no weapons. But the Shark class - if only implied by its namesake, 'Shark' - is slated to be a warship, thus, with weapons. If so, there would be no refit needed since it was originally designed with g-torps in mind.

It might not have to be gutted. There is no reason the launch system can't be built completely on the hull operated by a sliding door like that of a boat bay. The bulk of the torpedo(s) can sit on the outside of the hull.

P.S. G-torps do not need to impart sufficient velocity to clear a ship's wedge and the ship before bringing up the drive. So the launch mechanism might have less problems and a simpler design.

Jonathan_S wrote:My presumption from that is that Shark design (and likely their start of construction) predated the MAlign designing the graser torp. That's why (in addition to their smaller size; only partway between a BB and DN) Sharks had no ability to carry them internally. That there'd never been any such allowance because when designed the MAlign hadn't foreseen wanting to use such a large and unusually shaped weapon. Instead we know the Sharks were designed as podlayers, carrying pods of Cataphracts.

As Jonathan_S states, the books make it clear that the Sharks are pod-laying warships, but not designed for the graser torpedo. Only the LD class was purposely planned to carry them inside.

What you are describing is basically what the Malign did, only without a sliding door (why, if the torpedo is outside?).

Jonathan_S wrote:

penny wrote:I might be wrong, but I think it is implied in text. IINM that the Shark is supposed to carry the g-torp but that its delivery system wasn't complete???

By implication, the Ghost class is for reconnaissance missions, thus needs no weapons. But the Shark class - if only implied by its namesake, 'Shark' - is slated to be a warship, thus, with weapons. If so, there would be no refit needed since it was originally designed with g-torps in mind.

It might not have to be gutted. There is no reason the launch system can't be built completely on the hull operated by a sliding door like that of a boat bay. The bulk of the torpedo(s) can sit on the outside of the hull.

P.S. G-torps do not need to impart sufficient velocity to clear a ship's wedge and the ship before bringing up the drive. So the launch mechanism might have less problems and a simpler design.

The entirety of the relevant text seems to be:

Mission of Honor wrote:The torpedo’s size made fitting it into magazines and actually firing it awkward, to say the least, and the Sharks had never been intended to deploy it operationally. For that matter, the Sharks themselves had never been supposed to be deployed “operationally.” The Leonard Detweiler class, which had been intended to carry out this operation, had been designed with magazines and launch tubes which would make it possible to stow and fire torpedoes internally, but none of the Detweilers were even close to completion, and it had required the development of an ingenious external rack system to allow the Sharks to use it for Oyster Bay.

Then there's also the statement from SftS that the Sharks "were still essentially prototype units in many ways".

My presumption from that is that Shark design (and likely their start of construction) predated the MAlign designing the graser torp. That's why (in addition to their smaller size; only partway between a BB and DN) Sharks had no ability to carry them internally. That there'd never been any such allowance because when designed the MAlign hadn't foreseen wanting to use such a large and unusually shaped weapon. Instead we know the Sharks were designed as podlayers, carrying pods of Cataphracts. (They likely also have energy mounts; but I don't recall explicit statements to that effect; and may or may not have broadside mounted missile tubes)

However, as the gtorp was being designed and finalized the MAlign probably did modify at least one Shark to carry and deploy at least one gtorp externally for testing purposes (firing tests, weapons integration/targeting tests, etc.). So, I'd thing that that would have been the non-operational use they'd previously deployed them for. (After all, there'd be no need to include the qualification "operationally" if no Shark had ever previously been intended to deploy one).

Then when Oyster Bay came up before the LDs were ready the MAlign likely took whatever external pylon weapons testing and certification mount they'd come up with and jammed as many as practical onto each Shark. (I'm assuming the gtorp testing happened even before they started seriously looking at OB; rather than having to run a crash weapons test program in addition to hurriedly modifying Sharks for operational use)

But I didn't interpret anything in that quote as the MAlign having a roadmap for giving their existing Sharks an internal magazine and/or launch system for gtorps.


As for your suggestion, what would be the benefit of a torpedo sitting mostly outside the hull vs the current ingenious external rack system; where it's entirely outside the hull?

You still wouldn't have a magazine, so wouldn't seem to be carrying more torpedoes. But now you have to relocate whatever used to sit on, or for several meters behind, that long stretch of hull (assuming it's like a conformal, semi-recessed, air-to-air missile and so its long axis pointed the same way as the ship's; rather than like a sub-launched ballistic missile were it's mounted perpendicular to the ship). That's still quite a bit of work over the existing fully external rack and I'm not seeing the benefit.
Though you're likely right that you don't need the high velocity grav drivers of a missile launcher just to launch a gtorp; but you still need some unknown safety clearance around each spider emitter's path (they're not going to be as destructive as a wedge, but anything described as almost able to be an ad-hoc very short ranged weapon isn't going to good things it if clips the mothership's hull.) I don't know if the torp can use the emitters of the 1 or 2 drive skegs not pointed towards the ship to crab itself sideways far enough to clear their mutual drive exclusion zones (however big those might be), or if it needs to be launched with enough momentum to coast clear while the ship drifts (or accelerate) away, but either would allow fairly low performance launch mechanisms. (And you're not likely to need to tightly salvo gtorp launches, even once the LDs with their internal launch tubes come on line -- so you also don't need to quickly get one clear before the next is ready to launch)

Thanks for the appropriate text Jonathan. You’re an officer and a gentleman. I’ll just jump right in.

“The Sharks were never meant to be deployed operationally.”

To me that means they were not meant to attack enemy systems. But that says nothing about them being used as part of Home Fleet and protecting Darius. But since that ship has already sailed, and since their effectiveness has already been proven operationally, the MAN may rethink that decision and decide to make them an “invasive species.” I touched on the Shark’s potential weapons and tactics in the Attacking Darius thread.*

Sharks, by nature, are aggressive beasts. Literally unafraid of anything but killer whales. Ironic if we consider the LD’s immense size. But Sharks are aggressive by nature. I assume these Sharks will also be aggressive in their attack profile. Being much smaller than an LD, if all else as far as its stealth is equal, then by sake of its smaller size its stealth should be inherently better. Which might mean the Shark can get even closer to the enemy.

As I also introduced in one of my threads, since the Shark and the LD may get much closer to its target, they need a specialized missile that can attain maximum velocity very quickly; shooting its wad out of the gate.

Yes, Sharks are pod layers. And I suggested pods of specialized missiles that shoot their wad immediately. I suggested that the bulk of g-torps could be carried on the hull to prevent the need for having to gut the Shark as Jonathan suggested; to - as I didn’t make clear - carry a few more. And to carry a few more I am suggesting that gutting the Shark internally wouldn’t be necessary. Simply cut into the pod carrying capacity. Isn’t that essentially what the GA does? Gutting, to me, means cutting through other essential components, etc , and remodeling to make room for something not envisioned. That isn’t the case here if the MAN simply cuts into pod capacity.

The pod bay door is simply to feed the few internal g-torps to the external racks. Current US warplanes can configure themselves with a varying mixture of ordnance depending on the mission. Certainly the LD, at least, can do the same. And as I suspect, the Shark as well. There may be many different types of Shark, you see. As I also suggested in the Attacking Darius thread.

I think Jonathan might be right that the g-torp was developed after the Shark. I’ll at least agree that the g-torp was completed after the Shark, but I’m none too sure its initial development / research had not preceded the Shark’s. And as a result, I don’t think the Detweiler’s knew how large the damn thing would grow. And or if mimicking the GA’s smaller power plant might have something to do with its final size.

Trying to clandestinely import parts from Technodyne or from the League’s own doorsteps during initial development might have delayed a lot of the MAN’s toys. Yes, I always thought the MAN had been clandestinely importing specialty parts and materials and tools from right out from under other navy’s noses. In the beginning of their tech and research.

Let’s talk about a Shark’s launch mechanism by possibly laying pods then crawling away. A spider moves in mysterious ways. As far as needing to steer clear of its own tractors, do remember that the tractors in the memo I got also listed them as repressor beams, which might further aid in launching weapons.

*Fraction of C

The author might be wrong about when relativistic effects occur. No general velocity. If we consider difference in the mass of missiles. The author believes .9C is the critical point. His universe his rules.

I recall someone (I think RFC) being specific about when the effects of relativity begin on an object traveling at a significant fraction of C when considering a kinetic weapon. In this case, one that shoots its wad (obtains its maximum velocity) immediately. But it depends on the mass. A car hitting you head-on at 15 kph is a lot different than an 18 wheeler hitting you head-on at 15 kph. A Shark might get much closer to its target. There is no need to leave so much time on its drive clock.

Note: Near Infinite-mass missiles are discussed in the ? thread. Page 118 is a good place to start.

penny wrote:Yes, Sharks are pod layers. And I suggested pods of specialized missiles that shoot their wad immediately. I suggested that the bulk of g-torps could be carried on the hull to prevent the need for having to gut the Shark as Jonathan suggested; to - as I didn’t make clear - carry a few more. And to carry a few more I am suggesting that gutting the Shark internally wouldn’t be necessary. Simply cut into the pod carrying capacity. Isn’t that essentially what the GA does? Gutting, to me, means cutting through other essential components, etc , and remodeling to make room for something not envisioned. That isn’t the case here if the MAN simply cuts into pod capacity.

If the graser torpedo is bigger than a Cataphract pod (a reasonable assumption, since there was no attempt to carry them inside), then trying to change the Shark to carry some inside really is a major redesign. Since the LD class is being built to carry the G-torpedoes inside and the Sharks were mostly intended as training ships, it is unlikely that a redesign would be carried out.

I do not agree that the Sharks predate the G-torpedo, it was always intended that the LD-class carry out the full attack. That was their design function and the Sharks were only substituted because events were moving too quickly to wait for the completion of the LD ships.

tlb wrote:I do not agree that the Sharks predate the G-torpedo, it was always intended that the LD-class carry out the full attack. That was their design function and the Sharks were only substituted because events were moving too quickly to wait for the completion of the LD ships.

We certainly don't know.

But I suspect that if the Shark design had been finalized after the gtorp specs/dimensions were locked in that they'd have built the Sharks with at least one gtorp launch tube so they could serve as better training vessels for crews destined for the LDs. (And so they could more fully test the weapon and its final launch system before the LDs were too far along to easily modify)

And note that to serve as a training and testbed ship such a vessel wouldn't require a full up magazine behind the launch tube. You'd get some benefit out of having just a launch tube acting like a 1-cell box launcher; a bit more if you had a 1-round magazine feeding it; and the vast majority of the training and testing benefit from even just a 3-round magazine feeding a single tube. In a ~6 mton ship I think they'd have found the same for that if the gtorp had already been a thing before the Sharks were too far along.

However that's just my thinking. It's also possible that because the Sharks were intended primarily for training they only build in some of the MAligns weapons. But, to me, that seems an odd decision and one that fails to maximize the usefulness of a training vessel.

tlb wrote:I do not agree that the Sharks predate the G-torpedo, it was always intended that the LD-class carry out the full attack. That was their design function and the Sharks were only substituted because events were moving too quickly to wait for the completion of the LD ships.

Jonathan_S wrote:We certainly don't know.

But I suspect that if the Shark design had been finalized after the gtorp specs/dimensions were locked in that they'd have built the Sharks with at least one gtorp launch tube so they could serve as better training vessels for crews destined for the LDs. (And so they could more fully test the weapon and its final launch system before the LDs were too far along to easily modify)

And note that to serve as a training and testbed ship such a vessel wouldn't require a full up magazine behind the launch tube. You'd get some benefit out of having just a launch tube acting like a 1-cell box launcher; a bit more if you had a 1-round magazine feeding it; and the vast majority of the training and testing benefit from even just a 3-round magazine feeding a single tube. In a ~6 mton ship I think they'd have found the same for that if the gtorp had already been a thing before the Sharks were too far along.

However that's just my thinking. It's also possible that because the Sharks were intended primarily for training they only build in some of the MAligns weapons. But, to me, that seems an odd decision and one that fails to maximize the usefulness of a training vessel.

That's fair, it could have gone either way. My view was that the Sharks and Ghosts are for training in the spider drive and not specifically the weapon system. Obviously they are not just training ships, because the Ghosts also act as scouts and the Sharks as pod layers for the Cataphract missiles.

The question is when the 3 second graser was developed, because the possibility of a drone or a Mistletoe clone should have been obvious as soon as the spider drive was conceived. If you are right and the 3s-graser was later, then the inability to fit them inside a Shark led to the design of the LD. I do not get the impression from reading the books that the Sharks were originally designed to carry out Oyster Bay.

PS: I do think that a purely missile pod version of Oyster Bay could have worked, since the orbitals could not get the bubble walls up in time to defend against missiles (as long as they were attacked first). However the timing is much easier to control when the weapons for the orbitals can loiter.

penny wrote:Sharks, by nature, are aggressive beasts. Literally unafraid of anything but killer whales. Ironic if we consider the LD’s immense size. But Sharks are aggressive by nature. I assume these Sharks will also be aggressive in their attack profile. Being much smaller than an LD, if all else as far as its stealth is equal, then by sake of its smaller size its stealth should be inherently better. Which might mean the Shark can get even closer to the enemy.

Would you also say that the Minotaur-class CLACs are good at hiding, especially in mazes? Or that the Javelin-class destroyers should be ramming enemy ships?

No, I don't think a lumbering ship pulling 150 gravities is going to be aggressive. If it's a pod layer relying on stealth, it will drop its load and skedaddle out. A better name for the class would be "Chicken," not "Shark."

As I also introduced in one of my threads, since the Shark and the LD may get much closer to its target, they need a specialized missile that can attain maximum velocity very quickly; shooting its wad out of the gate.

Yes, you have and I've argued it's still a death sentence for that ship unless it can destroy everyone who might shoot back. That's a desperation tactic.

Instead, if it lays pods from afar and lets those coast in before activating their drives, the ship survives. Whether the missiles have extra acceleration or not is irrelevant here, though of course it helps if they do.

The pod bay door is simply to feed the few internal g-torps to the external racks. Current US warplanes can configure themselves with a varying mixture of ordnance depending on the mission. Certainly the LD, at least, can do the same. And as I suspect, the Shark as well. There may be many different types of Shark, you see. As I also suggested in the Attacking Darius thread.

We don't know for certain this can be done or cannot be. But the fact that the MAN did not attempt to modify the ships to carry torpedoes internally for Oyster Bay would indicate that it can't be done without a very expensive redesign, a long down time, or both. If that was the case prior to the attack, it still is now. If the LD is better at carrying torpedoes internally, then why would you have the Sharks do it too?

That's like the case of the frigate: you can make them, but they carry so few missiles that they can't really fight anyone worth fighting.

I think Jonathan might be right that the g-torp was developed after the Shark. I’ll at least agree that the g-torp was completed after the Shark, but I’m none too sure its initial development / research had not preceded the Shark’s. And as a result, I don’t think the Detweiler’s knew how large the damn thing would grow. And or if mimicking the GA’s smaller power plant might have something to do with its final size.

I've always thought they had known the size of the torpedo, or at least a good idea of what it would end up being, for at least the first iterations. I've thought the Sharks were designed the way they were in spite of the size of the torpedoes and the inability to carry the first couple of marks of the torpedoes internally. The Shark was a testbed of many technologies, especially that of a ship under spider drive. It was not designed to be deployed operationally, thus it need not fight anyone with torpedoes.

Trying to clandestinely import parts from Technodyne or from the League’s own doorsteps during initial development might have delayed a lot of the MAN’s toys. Yes, I always thought the MAN had been clandestinely importing specialty parts and materials and tools from right out from under other navy’s noses. In the beginning of their tech and research.

You're probably right. In fact, I expect the Galton Navy was importing far more, with just a mere trickle out of that going to Darius for the MAN.

The author might be wrong about when relativistic effects occur. No general velocity. If we consider difference in the mass of missiles. The author believes .9C is the critical point. His universe his rules.

He just ignores relativity as a whole. At 0.9c, the Lorenz factor is at 5.26, so that's not it. He just invented the need to have a particle shield and its failure to insert an upper limit.

I recall someone (I think RFC) being specific about when the effects of relativity begin on an object traveling at a significant fraction of C when considering a kinetic weapon. In this case, one that shoots its wad (obtains its maximum velocity) immediately. But it depends on the mass. A car hitting you head-on at 15 kph is a lot different than an 18 wheeler hitting you head-on at 15 kph. A Shark might get much closer to its target. There is no need to leave so much time on its drive clock.

The kinetic energy is linear with the rest mass of the object. But it's quadratic on the velocity, so if you can up the speed on a kinetic kill vehicle, you should.

penny wrote:Being much smaller than an LD, if all else as far as its stealth is equal, then by sake of its smaller size its stealth should be inherently better. Which might mean the Shark can get even closer to the enemy.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:No, I don't think a lumbering ship pulling 150 gravities is going to be aggressive. If it's a pod layer relying on stealth, it will drop its load and skedaddle out.

It should behave in the way that it did in Oyster Bay, where it built up speed so the pods could coast to their attack position, then hypered out. Of course that was against a static position, we need to see what the author plans against a mobile target. The best would be to unload the pods in the path of the enemy like the mines deployed in SVW.

PS: We talk about the Shark being smaller, but they are midway between a battleship and a dreadnought according to the book; so actually fairly big.

tlb wrote:PS: We talk about the Shark being smaller, but they are midway between a battleship and a dreadnought according to the book; so actually fairly big.

But in terms of pod load out, that might not be a lot. The Agamemnon-class BC(P) was deemed too fragile and a dead-end design. The original Medusa-class SD(P)s are much bigger than the Sharks, but only carried 492 pods, and those are RMN pods and missiles, which are smaller. Maybe the Ninurta is coming close to the size now, but I still suspect each ship would be able to carry less than 3000 missiles. Eighth Fleet at the Battle of Solon successfully handled 11,000 Havenite missiles with just two SD(P)s and escorts, though emerging not unscathed.

Since the Sharks already existed at the time the Battle of Solon was fought, I suspect the Shark design was from earlier reports and missile counts. That might also explain the "not deployed operationally" with having built 24 of them, not just 2 or 3 prototypes: they had been designed for deployment, but became woefully insufficient, so all effort was turned to the Leonard Detweiler class that was on the drawing board.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

penny wrote:The pod bay door is simply to feed the few internal g-torps to the external racks. Current US warplanes can configure themselves with a varying mixture of ordnance depending on the mission. Certainly the LD, at least, can do the same. And as I suspect, the Shark as well. There may be many different types of Shark, you see. As I also suggested in the Attacking Darius thread.

We don't know for certain this can be done or cannot be. But the fact that the MAN did not attempt to modify the ships to carry torpedoes internally for Oyster Bay would indicate that it can't be done without a very expensive redesign, a long down time, or both. If that was the case prior to the attack, it still is now. If the LD is better at carrying torpedoes internally, then why would you have the Sharks do it too?

While I agree that it's likely a very long and expensive refit to add internal gtorp carriage it's possible there's some quicker way of doing it by just remuddling the pod bay. But the MAlign wouldn't have wanted to do that for Oyster Bay because the gtorp was untried in actual combat and they viewed the cataphract pods as a necessary redundancy and would have rejected any thought of reducing Cataphract pods to carry more of the less trusted gtorps.
If that happens to have been the case then post-OB, after they was that the gtorps did in fact work as advertised they'd might be more willing to give up pod stowage and roll rate to carry more gtorps. But that's speculation on speculation. Enough of an option that most folks wouldn't scream "retcon" if such a retrofit happened but no evidence at all that RFC would view it as desirable or even possible.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:I've always thought they had known the size of the torpedo, or at least a good idea of what it would end up being, for at least the first iterations. I've thought the Sharks were designed the way they were in spite of the size of the torpedoes and the inability to carry the first couple of marks of the torpedoes internally. The Shark was a testbed of many technologies, especially that of a ship under spider drive. It was not designed to be deployed operationally, thus it need not fight anyone with torpedoes.

Not necessarily. If the gtorp was mid development when the Shark design was finalized their might still have been multiple camps around what acceleration an effective torpedo would require.

The text is quite clear that the gtorp's acceleration is limited by its size -- you can only squeeze so many spider emitters onto something that small. So, if the folks involved in its development hadn't yet settled on the "few hundred gravities" accel of the final weapon there could have still be wild variations in proposed weapon size (even ignoring potential arguments over endurance and payload).

If some are convinced you need a quicker weapons; one that at least has a noticeable acceleration advantage over freighters and (old style) LACs that'd seemingly necessitate a design about twice as long as the gtorp they finally settled on. And there might be others who view even the gtorp we got as too large; saying with its stealth it didn't need accel and if you dropped it to, say, 50 gees it'd a lot smaller; making it easier to launch and letting you carry more in a given magazine volume.

That kind of uncertainty would make it very hard to even leave reasonable reserved volume in the Shark design for later installation of gtorp magazines and launchers; and it might have been surprisingly late in the gtorp's development before acceleration (and thus size) specs were finally frozen.