Hello, Paul, Miguel and I have been playing StarGrunt for quite a while using
my point system adapted from DirtSide and Steve Gibson's ideas. One of the
interesting ideas was how to generate heavy weapons squads,
spcifically one using the equivelent of a .50 machine gun on a tri-pod.
The first idea was to look at the APSWs given in the list, but these are
more like a M-60 .30 machine gun and they do not gain any benefit from
a stablized platform as they are not heavy weapons. Therefore, I went ahead
and adapted the RFAC in StarGrunt. It counted as a heavy weapon with a
stabalized platform and could have a firecontrol built in. It would be a crew
served weapon and have a range band of 12 inches. I know that the rules would
bring the FP rating down to a D8, but this is rediculous as a chain gun or its
equivelent is as effective of a
anti-personnel weapon as it is againts light targets. It puts up a
sufficient volume of fire to meet a Leinchester model to hit dispersed targets
without having to fire special rounds. We have run it in several games and it
has worked well with a good balance.
RFAC/1 FireControl Impact Cost
none D4 1 chit/D10 5
Basic D6 1 chit/D10 7
Enhanced D8 1 chit/D10 9
Superior D10 1 chit/D10 11
GAC/1 FireControl Impact Cost
none D4 1 chit/D12 6
Basic D6 1 chit/D12 8
Enhanced D8 1 chit/D12 10
Superior D10 1 chit/D12 12
In DirtSide, I reccommend that a Gauss Auto Cannon be built and operated like
a RFAC but with a cost multiple of 6 and add 2 inches onto each range band.
Meanwhile the SAW on a vehicle costs 4 points and the APSW for an infantry
unit costs 10. Does not work for me. I propose that the free APSW on a vehicle
and the 4 point costing ones from there are the Squad Assault Rifle listed in
the point system(FP = D8 Impact = D10 cost =4). However, a Squad Assault
Weapon mounted on a vehicle or placed on its tripod in a fixed position should
gain some benefit from the stability versus when fired on the move. Therefore,
I reccomend that a SAW on a vehicle or fired from a squad "in position" gain a
beneficial shift up one on its FirePower die in StarGrunt to reflect the
increased effective range. Meanwhile, in DirtSide, RFAC and GAC 1s & 2s should
draw three chits vice two against infantry units. You'll be surprised to see
that RFACs medium range is 12 inches (must be within medium to hit infantry),
the same range as an APSW... Instead, I suggest that an infantry squad that
has a SAW in them, fires 8 inches, just like a powered armor unit and draws
three damage chits, just like a PA unit. The "heavy rifles" that a PA unit
has, reflects the same thing. I'll see if there is a formula similar to my
armor versus squad hits that works as well. Therefore, you could do a couple
things. Purchase crew weapons squads with a RFAC or GAC for the points listed
above and give their weapons the ability to hit infantry and soft armor. Or
purchase a SAW squad for 4 points and give them the impact capability of a PA
squad.
Perversely you could run a mini-StarGrunt scenario with the
adjusted scale of 1 DS inch = 10 SG inches, but this could lose the speed of
DS in a large game and is not reccomended... Feedback is apreciated and
comments by those who have played with these is requested. (Miguel? Paul?...)
Phil P.
Gort, Klaatu barada nikto!
My take on this issue was rather different. First let me make it absolutely
clear what I'm talking about:
Real world DSII SGII
----------------------------------------------------
SAW,LSW,LMG,GPMG Included in SAW
rifle team
HMG APSW Nothing
20mm Cannon RFAC/1 RFAC/1
To my mind the problem is twofold: to represent HMGs in SGII and to account
for having different types of MG mounted on vehicles in DSII.
Heavy Support Weapons: These fall inbetween the SAW type weapons and Class 1
Heavy Weapons. They are normally operated by a two or three man team. They use
the same rules as Crew served weapons (page 30 of SGII) but the crew do not
count as encumbered when moving.
Weapon Firepower Impact
------------------------------------------------------
HMG D10 D6x2 Rotary HMG D12 D6x2 Gauss HMG D12 D8x2
The D6x2 (not 2D6) Impact is better than D12 but not by the same amount that
D12 is better than D10 etc.
They fire as infantry arms against armoured vehicles and so can't do
much real damage. But the need to keep them less powerful than RFAC/1s
forbade any other options.
When fitted to vehicles they take 1 capacity when mounted externally, but 2
when mounted in any turret that can be fired from inside.
Back to DSII. The HMG teams are simply APSW teams. On vehicles both HMGs and
SAWs count as APSWs, this is the benefit for solidly mounting a SAW on a
vehicle rather than lugging it around on foot.
Other SGII weapons converted to DSII: Weapon Range Chits Notes
Steve spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> To my mind the problem is twofold:
Unless down to 50% original strength. One guy could carry a.50 HMG plus
tripod, but he'd think he was dying. One guy pulling a wheeled MG like and
older soviet DShK would find it a bit of a go. Also, in this case, you may
want to shift firepower down one die type
to reflect the abscense of a loader - these guns aren't autoloaders
like some of the ones on vehicles and are probably belt fed.
> Weapon Firepower Impact
I'd be tempted to use D8x2 for the HMG also. The M2HB hits way harder
than the 7.62mm multi-barrell does. The Gauss is obviously best of
both worlds. Once you go to RFACs, you start reaching the calibre
where the round is not as effective against infantry - it just goes
right through.
Also, minis of HW that have gunshields might offer one shift for cover (it is
hard cover, but not 360 degree, or fully protecting) for the gun crew.
> The D6x2 (not 2D6) Impact is better than D12 but not by the same
D10 to D12 gains 1 point in mean, 2 points in max.
D12 vs D6 times 2 - mean of the former is 6.5, the latter is 7. Max
is the same. But D6x2 is minimum 2. So it'll score more kills.
> They fire as infantry arms against armoured vehicles and so can't do
Good solution.
> I have the feeling that this is terrible unclear.
Nonsense. It's great. I'm going to use it. You should post this to jeremy
sadler and have him put it up on the unofficial SG2 page. It's good!
Tom.
/************************************************
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> Unless down to 50% original strength. One guy could carry a .50
But he'd have to be wearing his underpants on the outside. I've helped
carry a .50 cal HMG tripod - it took two of us to go faster than a slow
An M2.50 cal HMG weighs 135lbs U.S. That's just the receiver and barrel. Does
not include ammo or tripod.
Los
> Alan E & Carmel J Brain wrote:
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> Alan E & Carmel J Brain wrote:
> aebrain@dynamite.com.au <> <> How doth the little Crocodile
The weight of the M2 .50 cal HMG is 81 Lbs. 100 rounds of ammo
(linked) weight is 30.25 lbs. The weight of the aircraft (fighter).50 cal is
just over 60 lbs. The water cooled version weight is 121.5 lbs (with water)
100.5 lbs (without water)
I suspect the number of 145 lbs includes the tripod.
Bye for now,
> > Heavy Support Weapons:
Well considering what's been said since this was written and also bearing in
mind that we are talking SF here and thus we might be able to expect lighter,
stronger alloys (and wouldn't caseless ammo also reduce the weight a bit?) I'd
propose the following:
3-man team Normal Movement
2-man Encumbered Movement
1-man Forget it!
So you could have a four man HMG team (always nice to have a spare...) or a
standard three man team, or a two man team if you don't plan on moving around
much.
> > Weapon Firepower Impact
I wasn't intending the Rotary HMG to be a 7.62mm equivalent. I was
intending it to be the multi-barrelled equivalent of the HMG. Sure
there's no way such a brute could be man-packed today, but as I said
above this is SF and power supplies have to be smaller/lighter to
make gauss weapons and power armour possible. Ditto coolant systems and
caseless ammo.
After all, the Rot-SAW is presumably chambered in the same calibre as
the SAW in the standard rules.
> Also, minis of HW that have gunshields might offer one shift for
Hmmm. Not sure about that. Maybe.
> > I have the feeling that this is terrible unclear.
Cheers.
> Steve Pugh wrote:
...Snips throughout...(JTL)
> Well considering what's been said since this was written and also
> > > Weapon Firepower Impact
> Steve
Steve, I agree completely that the better alloys of reduced weight and
increased strength. This improvement will make the HMG more
transportable in any form.
Caution; a big 'however' follows.
HOWEVER, the HMG improved in this manner will be useless on the
field of battle. As a squad or platoon leader I would rather have
3 or 4 guys with the 50 cal. long range semi-auto target rifle
than the HMG that is being discussed. The reason is simple, my
3/4 snipers will deliver more rounds on target in a shorter period
of time than the HMG.
Many of the people reading this will say "No, way in hades" is that last
statement true.
Caution; a big 'however' follows.
HOWEVER, the reduction in weight coupled with an increase in
firepower (tri-barrel), will cause the weapon to 'walk' upwards at
an alarming rate, it is not unlikely that such a weapon would roll over if an
attempt was made to fire a sustained burst. It is very unlikely that more that
two rounds from this weapon could have a
chance to hit a target. (It could justify the 'fourth man' on the
crew, he could throw himself across the gun to add weight. The
disadvantage here is that it will be more difficult to aim!) It is unlikely
that a reduction in gun weight will cause a
reduction in load for the crew. The weapon being discussed will
have an increased rate of fire and therefore the crew will carry more
ammunition.
> >Once you go to RFACs, it is not as effective (against infantry, JTL)
I fear the 50 cal is in this league, as it just goes right thru the poor
grunt. I have read that germans used the quad 20 flak on the eastern front,
against russian infantry, with astounding success.
Sorry, I really don't mean to spoil the fun.
Bye for now,
John spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Caution; a big 'however' follows.
Sniper qualified people are rarer than Machine Gunners in my limited
experience. Plus, I don't believe that your snipers would be as capable of
suppressing an area. They could kill some people in that area but not keep it
suppressed like the big ole.50 HMG.
> HOWEVER, the reduction in weight coupled with an increase in
Okay, Counterpoint: You aren't including the various effects the future could
introduce into this equation. The first is that if we have grav technology,
presumably we could use some form of compensator to increase the effective
weight of the unit vs. recoil, but then disengage this when moving. But that
is a super tech solution. The easier solution is to conceive of something I
was telling Los about from GDWs 2300 AD. They have Gauss Rifles and Binary
Propellant Rifles. In both cases, the rounds (single shot) are high V,
probably high kick (although with Gauss you are accelerating a smaller mass,
but since it has to go faster the effect is the same) shot. When fired full
auto or autoburst, the BP weapon injects less propellant and the gauss weapon
fires at a lower acceleration. This translates to slightly lower impacts, but
better controllability for autoburst. When you are talking about area
suppression, this seems desirable. And it seems feasible even for support
weapons. Additionally, certain hydraulics counter systems could be added or
integrated or a gas based reaction system could be used to counter the effects
of recoil.
> It is unlikely that a reduction in gun weight will cause a
That is quite possibly true. If we do ammo tracking, and I plan to do some for
my troops (which makes when you fire a little more of an issue), then this is
an issue. As it is now, we sort of assume the troopers have as much ammo as
they need for a scenario. But you might be right. If I'm an HW det commander,
and I've got my 4 man MG team, and the MG is lighter, I'll just get them to
carry more ammo. More ammo is always a good thing for support weapons (that's
why your troopies with rifles usually carry extra ammo in their rucks or in
ammo boxes for the support weapons.... they eat it fast, but its nice to have
them around.....)
> > >Once you go to RFACs, it is not as effective (against infantry,
I agree but 20mm is even worse.
> I have read that germans used the quad 20 flak on the eastern
I'm sure. I would guess that that is the case because they had (vs. a man
portable system) a huge ammo supply, and the fact a round didn't mushroom in a
guy didn't necessarily matter, if it was ball they were firing, as he probably
got hit more than once (and a 20mm round even not expanding leaves a big
hole). Add to that the fact that your AA rounds may have been explosive with
some type of fusing (which would just kill infantry it hit).
For historical note, the US used their quad.50 in the half tracks to
devastating effect against infantry. And if you've ever seen an M113 PIVAD
with the 20mm Vulcan cannon fired against a mock convoy or infantry section in
the woods, you'll realize why they call it the buzzsaw and why any infantryman
worth his salt wants the AirForce to take out the anti air assets.... (In the
CF movie "Small Arms in the Anti Aircraft Role", I got to watch one of these
just literally scythe through a bunch of trucks and plywood infantrymen....
just terrifying how effective it would be).
> Sorry, I really don't mean to spoil the fun.
That's fine. We each have our own thoughts and some even make sense! I'm sure
that in the future a 2 man portable HMG is possible. You'd still want a three
or four man team though.
Tom.
/************************************************
> Another point of note is that machine guns are not primarily employed
I was thinking that most infantry "machine gun" type weapons of the future
designed for infantry suppression would be a flechette type weapon. I imagined
that it would fire high density plastic or ceramic "needles" projected at
hypersonic speeds.
This would require a vastly increased fire rate, but much lighter ammo if the
needles are fired individually (one per barrel). This weapon could even have
hundreds of barrels set in a standard dispersion pattern (or have an
adjustable spread).
Or could use a lower fire rate and the same weight if they are fired in a
submunition fashion (one shell produces x number of needles). With this type
of ammo, you could probably set up a deadly boobytrap.
If the needles are sharp enough and the speeds high enough, they should be
able to penetrate light (read anything less than level 1 vehicle) armor.
Snipped a lot here.......
> ----------
The
> disadvantage here is that it will be more difficult to aim!)
Please readjust the perception that machine guns fire in long sustained bursts
every time the trigger is pulled. The correct teaching (ala Australian Direct
Fire Weapons Platoons) is to fire bursts of 2 to 3 rounds when firing from
bipod or tripod "free traverse". Only in firing "fixed lines" or dedicated
Fire Missions are bursts of 20 rounds fired.
In the latter case the mount (when on tripod) or the barrel/bipod are
firmly secured. Anyone who would be trying to fire long bursts without bedding
the tripod should expect the mount to move and his fire not to be effective!!!
These are your Green 3 troops!
Another point of note is that machine guns are not primarily employed to kill
individual soldiers (what? blasphemy?) but are employed to suppress an enemy
position!! That is why they produce a 'cone of fire' and the pattern the
rounds will form on the ground is a 'beaten zone';
generally around 1 m wide and from 40 to 100+ m long (another reason why
MGs are best used in ENFILADE). Heavy Machine Guns are meant to take out
lightly armoured vehicles, lightly fortified postions and definitely are
effective at SUPPRESSING infantry.
OK, Theory of Small Arms Fire lesson over for now. I would like people to have
a close think about what effectiveness they are trying to acheive with the
weapon categories.
And a last comment; please be a little careful about using the 'in
WWII.......' Present day military theorists have recognised that there is a
great danger in preparing an army to 'fight the last war'.
Carefully donning Kevlar,
Actually Owen, Tom and I have been having this discussion off line, but I must
emphatically agree with your point. In the USA Army using the M60 new gunners
are taught to squeeze the trigger and say to tehm selves "six to nine rounds"
and let go of the trigger. By that time you will ahve fire..yep you guessed it
6-9
rounds. It's not too hard to get it down to 2-3 rounds bursts (it's
considered "chic" amongst expert gunners to have your bursts as small as
possible.) however with eh M60 (Pig as we affectinately call it), firing
bursts that are TOO small (2-3 rounds) can lead to Jams and misfeeds.
Weird
Los
> Glover, Owen wrote:
> Snipped a lot here.......
upwards
> at
on
> the
I would add that once you mount any MG/SAW/minigun/meatchopper on a
vehicle, then by all means spray away. Inaccuaracy will increase with the
length of the burst but what the hey you can carry all the juice you want! <g>
Owen, Los, I guess the next question I must ask after the lesson in 'burst
control' is: Why develop a lightweight HMG in a multi-barrel
configuration to fire a three round burst?
I for one have never read of any sort of multi-barrel weapon used
in this manner. (Perhaps I need to read more, I am not really
up on the modern weapons.)
Bye for now,
I always liked the idea of a inf weapon from Renegade Legion. I has a small
block of polymer for ammo, and slices off pieces to form the projectile. It
has a "needle" setting for shredding softer targets, and a "slug" setting for
tougher targets. Rounds per setting differ of course. This is an interesting
way to give your troops a supression AND firepower all in one weapon, but not
have to keep up with a ammo types. Scylla
> Brian Bell wrote:
> >> Another point of note is that machine guns are not primarily
Well, it seems you are talking a chicken and egg thing here.
Firstly there are not to my knowledge currently many multi barrel
infantry weapons about (but in DS/SG we are looking 200 years on);
anyway I thought much of this discussion was about the comparison of a single
barreled.50 Cal or Dshk type weapon.
Next, a support weapon is not developed to fire three five or 9 round bursts.
The changes in MG fire control are a result of observation and experience.
Anyway, long bursts are still used as required eg in Fixed Lines. The soldiers
who use them adapt to obtain the best performance from their weapons.
Cheers,
Owen G
> ----------
On Sun, 08 Mar 1998 20:34:06 +0000 Brian Bell <brian.bell@axom.com>
writes:
> I was thinking that most infantry "machine gun" type weapons of the
The only problem with needles are the fact that I have heard that they don't
go where they are intended. Needles or fletchettes tend to wander, if you are
firing them into brush it is absolutely wild. A single leaf can deflect a
needle. A slight breeze ( invisible to the firer) can shift the target point
significantly.
> At 10:29 AM 3/8/1998 -0800, John L. wrote:
You have to recall that in the Vietnam war we converted several RFAC or Vulcan
cannons and placed them on trucks to help fight the human wave attacks from
the VC. The front line of the human wave was armed with rifles and succeeding
waves were armed with lesser weapons all the way down to spears... The last
wave picked up the weapon of his fallen camrade from the front wave and
continued on. We discovered that the Vulcan (AKA GE
sixpack, would mow down these waves, particularly /because/ it went
through the first guy and into the next... More importantly, with its
stabalized platform, it could put a huge volume of firepower into an area to
almost increase the number of hits... StarGrunt already says that a size 1
weapon and its mount can be carried by a crew... the HMGs seem redundant at
this point.
Gort, Klaatu barada nikto!
Don't we have grav vehicles in our rules? What's wrong with making a grav sled
to put a Fifty on? Sure, it would still have inertia, but it would be a lot
easier for only a couple of guys to tow it around. And when it comes time to
shoot, turn off the grav sled. Or, if yuo want to be
_really_ sure you don't move, just reverse it, so you stick to the
ground. :-) Remember, if we have the technology for one thing, we have
to use it in other areas as well, or explain why we can't. After all, this
isn't Star Trek we're talking about here. ;-)
I've got a few ideas why this grav sled won't work, but I kinda like it, so if
you want to know why not, y'all will have to ask me.
On Sun, 08 Mar 1998 10:29:46 -0800 John Leary <realjtl@sj.bigger.net>
writes:
> Steve Pugh wrote:
On Sun, 08 Mar 1998 18:26:51 -0800 John Leary <realjtl@sj.bigger.net>
writes:
> Owen, Los,
I agree, sorry for being a little cute but this sounds like re-inventing
the wheel. A three round burst weapon is generally called an assault
rifle!!!!
I had always assumed that a multi-barrel design occurred for one of two
reasons.
1. To increase the rate of fire. One bullet was going down one barrel while
the next barrel was loading, and the third was ejecting a casing.
By the way the literature I have says that if a infantry weapon fires too fast
then the infantry can't carry enough ammo to justify its utility (5 seconds
and all the ammo carried by the squad is burned through, is a little
pointless!!!)
2. To reduce wear and heat warping on the barrel. (200 years of advancing
metallurgy makes this sound a little specious.)
For slightly different tack........
I ran across a couple of references to WWII where it was stated that the
50.cal HMG was regularly used in the sniper function. Using its anchored
tripod it was extremely stable and was fired in a single (or two depending on
the skill of the gunner) round action. Then the gunner had to manually
rechamber the gun to fire a next time. Thousand yard sniping was not uncommon.
It may have been done in WWI but I haven't done enough research to know.
> At 19:33 09/03/98 -0600, you wrote:
SNIP
> For slightly different tack........
The.50cal wasn't really available in WW1 (perhaps at the very
end?), being devised as an anti-tank weapon- I seem to recall that it
was, for a while, illegal to use it directly against personnel. On the
long-range sniping point, another goodie was the otherwise obsolete
anti-tank rifle (PTRD & PTRS) as used by the Red Army in WW2- they
remained numerous in Soviet infantry units to the end of the war.
Rob
On Sun, 8 Mar 1998 22:41:09 -0600 tom411@JUNO.COM (Thomas E Hughes)
writes:
> On Sun, 08 Mar 1998 20:34:06 +0000 Brian Bell <brian.bell@axom.com>
Yeah, but if you shoot *lots* of needles, that shouldn't matter. :-)
> Tom Hughes
On Mon, 9 Mar 1998 19:33:56 -0600 tom411@JUNO.COM (Thomas E Hughes)
writes:
> On Sun, 08 Mar 1998 18:26:51 -0800 John Leary <realjtl@sj.bigger.net>
An ex-marine A knew when growing up told me about this. He said that in
Korea, they used to do long-range sniping. I don't recall if he told me
about mounting a scope on one, or if that's a story I heard from somewhere
else.
He also told me about the M-16 anti-aircraft track--a halftrack with
quad-fifties mounted on it. They'd crank the barrels up and use it for
indirect fire on the far side of ridges. I don't know how effective that
would be--I think I'd rather use 105's--but I imagine it could have a
bit of a psychological effect, if nothing else.
> Glover, Owen wrote:
> Firstly there are not to my knowledge currently many multi barrel
The only place you see these fanciful miniguns are on TV and movies. They are
beyond the capacity of modern technology or human capabilities to employ in a
cost effective manner, nor would one gain much in actual effect over current
MGs.
> Next, a support weapon is not developed to fire three five or 9 round
What exactly do you mean by fixed lines? I'm not tracking here. There's only
one stat that matters in a MG. That's sustained fire rate. How many rounds can
you ACCURATELY put down range on target without melting the barrel or causing
some other malfunction. You also have to look at how portable the weapon is.
This discussion started about man portable machineguns and min guns. If you
want to mount the thing on a vehicle, aircraft, power armor, whatever, then go
ahead and fire 6000 rounds a minute. Just make sure you have a little RC Flyer
wagon towed behind you chock full of rounds.
Regarding caliber, I want an MG that can kill vehicles. Any old caliber can
kill a guy, that's no problem. But what happens when a vehicle rolls into
view? Try killing a BRDM or a HUMVEE (kevlar model) with a 5.56mm SAW. You're
not going to have the punch. I'll take penetration, impact and accuracy over
ROF everytime. 500 rounds per minute on your position is jsut as suppressive
as 3000 rounds per minute as long as they're accurate. So will any gunner that
knows his business.
As an aside: Cyclic rate of fire on machineguns is one of those dubious
statistics that layman banter around much akin to "How far out can that sniper
rifle shoot?" Fact is a sniper rifle is only as good as the guy using it.
Anything over 600 meters and the primary factors effecting the round are
atmospheric/environmental conditions and firer experience. Optics
caliber and make have some impact but it's all in the shooter's knowledge of
his personal weapon and his "kentucky windage afer that. We use the M24 system
in SF. It's a great weapon and I myself have dropped man sized targets (on the
range)out to 900 meters, but that's with a spotter and a couple of rounds. Now
matter how accurately zeroed a rifle is, even Carlos Hathcock you can't just
pick it up off the bench and drop people at 1000m.
Also someone mentioned 50 cal sniper weapons. Hathcock did have a kill out to
2500m with an M2 50 cal MG with a spotter scope. The unfortunate sap had the
bad luck of actually hiding directly in the impact point of where he was
zeroing the weapon!
Hi Los,
> What exactly do you mean by fixed lines? I'm not tracking here.
Sorry, fallen into the trap of one's own countries military terminology
"Fixed Line" is the employment of a weapon 'fixed' to fire on a single azimuth
and elevation, normally used in defense and to cover a specific target such as
a section of, or gap in, a barbed wire
obstacle/minefield.
> Glover, Owen wrote:
Hi guys, This is also called 'final defensive line'. If defending an
area with overlapping lines/fields of fire of the units MGs.
This is the closest line of fire to the defenders line that the MG
can/will adopt during an assault by enemy forces. This line is
frequently just behind the wire/mine areas.
Bye for now,
Ahh in US parlance, Final Protective Fire.
Los
> John Leary wrote:
> Glover, Owen wrote: