_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI've
never been an infantryman, but I've got an interest in riflery so I'll offer
my two cents. Short answer: range and round matter a lot. For example:
"Primitive:" Examples drawn from the 20th Century inlcude the Mauser
K98, Enfield SMLE of various marks, Swiss Schmidt-Rubin K.11 (and K.31
carbine), Russian Mosin-Nagant M91/30 (the Finnish variants are better
made and approach the Swiss rifles in quality), Springfield M1917, and a
few others. These weapons fire a full-power .30 caliber (or thereabouts)
cartridge. Although not mentioned, the semi-automatic battle rifle (M1
Garand) probably ought to be added here. Effective range in the hands of
a trained infantryman is 600+ meters.
"Basic:" Here is where a more precise definition is required.
Technically, "assault rifle" refers to a weapon such as the M16/M4, SKS,
AK47, AKMS et al. These use an intermediate-power cartridge such as the
7.62x39, 5.56x.45, or 5.45 x something or other. Effective range is
about 300 meters or so, but they outstrip semi-autos and bolt rifles in
close-quarters battle because of the select-fire capability. However,
the term may also refer to the select-fire battle rifle such as the M-14
or FN/FAL, which have the select-fire capability of the assault rifles
(more properly termed carbines), wedded to a full-power cartridge
(7.62x51 NATO, for example). Effective range in semi-auto is equivalent
to the bolt-action and semi-auto rifles. (So why did they fall out of
favor? Weight of the weapon and basic load, among other things--ammo in
volume is heavy.)
A third candidate for this category is the submachine gun such as the Thompson
M1927, M3 "grease gun," Uzi, or MP40(?). These generally fire
pistol-caliber cartridges, or the equivalent (an exception would be the
M1 carbine, firing a .30 carbine round). Small and handy, full-auto rate
of fire is impressive, but the combination of relatively short barrel
and pistol-cartridge characteristics limits effective range to about 150
meters.
So it depends on the level of detail you want to model, I reckon. I'll leave
the vonder veapons to others. I hope this is somewhat helpful.
Best,
Ken
> Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
Following on from last week's interesting discussions, I want to pose
a question to the list-mind; this is something that has already been
talked over on the test list, but I wanted to widen the discussion to include
everyone on the main list, especially those of you who have done this stuff
"for real".....
In reasonably open terrain, assuming clear lines of sight, do you foresee the
advance of INFANTRY weapons technology having much effect on engagement ranges
against personnel targets?
I'm working on ideas for SG-style 15mm combat, and trying to decide
if the RANGE of infantry weapons fire should change with the tech level of the
weapons, or if just the effectiveness of the fire should change with the
overall engagement ranges remaining constant.
I'm looking at tech levels ranging from "Primitive" (bolt-action
rifles etc), "Basic" (automatic assault rifles), "Enhanced" (advanced combat
rifles), "Superior" (Gauss and laser weapons) and "Advanced" (plasma and
fusion weapons).
Discuss...... ;-)
Jon (GZG)
> I've never been an infantryman, but I've got an interest in riflery
Thanks for the input, Ken; this all supports my own feelings on the subject,
which is that in simple game terms the effective engagement ranges for
infantry should probably remain the same across the tech levels. If anything
is going to significantly increase the useful ranges (in combat conditions,
not on the firing range) then it is more likely to be advances in sensor tech
than in the weapons
themselves - increasing the range at which targets can be accurately
located to be fired at, rather than the actual weapon ranges (which we can
probably assume are adequate for most combat situations).
In game terms, I think it best to model increasing weapons tech as raising the
volume of fire laid down (hence the chance of getting hits) and the lethality
of those hits; range will remain primarily a function of the quality of the
firer, perhaps modified for sensor tech where appropriate.
Any other opinions on this....?
> Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> Ken Hall wrote:
[...]
Historically, not every army chose such powerful rounds. Many had lighter
6.5mm cartridges, such as the Japanese 6.5mm Arisaka round (also used by the
Russians in the Federov automatic, an early assault rifle). The reasoning
behind the powerful weaponry chosen
by most of the Great Powers - a platoon officer directing fire for
a platoon in file, and calling corrections, shooting at targets up
to 1000 yards away - was faulty, almost nobody was able to fight
effectively at such long ranges - at least until the firepower was
concentrated in machine guns. These cartridges work great in machine guns, the
Russians still use the old Tsarist cartridge.
Many armies had serious proposals to reduce the power of their rifles, but
every army stuck with using machine gun compatible
ammo - and major armies using 6.5mm ammo ditched it for powerful
MG stuff. Meanwhile engagement ranges were almost universally short (in both
major Wars) and some armies basically gave up on teaching marksmanship to
concentrate on blasting people with automatic fire from machineguns and SMGs.
There was an attempt to get NATO standardised on an intermediate power
cartridge inspired by the 6.5mm Arisaka (that Japan had already rejected) and
it died a death. So, I'm rambling like a fool but the point I'm making is that
armies pretty much pick cartridges for using in machineguns as their highest
priority. Even today there are ideas floating to get US forces to upgun to a
6.5 or 6.8mm bullet bodged into a short enough cartridge to fit M4s and M249s,
but it doesn't fly because a SAW gunner would have to carry so much more
weight in ammo. The 5.56mm NATO cartridge is a SAW cartridge first and
foremost and Pvt Average NATO soldier
will get a rifle/carbine/PDW that uses it.
When the US conducted tests for improved rifles (20 years ago now?) including
such things as the caseless G11 rifle with the
super recoil-delaying burst gizmo, they still were never able to
get much improvement in effectiveness over the M16 with a decent optic on top.
Then they cut six inches off the barrel.
Anyhow, I would suggest that leaving engagement ranged independent of most
small arms technology because that's one of the basic premises of Stargrunt
(except maybe for lasers). We are working on fiction here and not writing
theses on ultramodern combat. The actual future won't be anything even a
little bit like Stargrunt anyway. If the present day reality isn't as cool as
"Aliens" then reality is wrong.
> On Feb 4, 2008, at 3:36 PM, Ground Zero Games wrote:
Isn't the first problem to FIND the target so you can F&F 'em? Weapons
technology will help the last two Fs but sensors will help in the finding of a
target.
Perhaps it isn't an issue of weapons type at all but of the sensor package
attached to the weapon?
It would make for good exports in any event..."Oh sure we'll sell you
the XM-55 with standard optics but we're gonna have to keep the
XM-55-34 Predictive Movement/XRay targeting gear for
ourselves....unless you wanna do this little thing we need done in Southern
Uzblechastan."
D.
> On 05/02/2008, at 01:13 , Ken Hall wrote:
> "Primitive:" <SNIP> These weapons fire a full-power .30 caliber (or
I learned to shoot at school on weapons very much like these, starting with.22
LR at thirteen years old and graduating to 7.62 NATO later on. I always
wondered about this whole "effective range"
thing. On a target-range, hitting a man-sized target at 600+ metres
is not that hard, but I doubt that it really counts as effective range on the
battlefield (though I hasten to add that I have *no* military experience).
Of course, a rifleman can blaze away in the general direction of the
enemy, and the bullets will retain plenty of lethality at 600+
metres, so if some unfortunate person happens to be in the wrong place at the
wrong time, they'll be hit. Does that count as "effective" fire? It might
serve a suppressive function I suppose.
If I was thinking about shooting at individuals, with a fair degree of
confidence of hitting them, first I'd have to see them. I don't
imagine the enemy soldiers would be standing in road-menders jackets
on the skyline, but rather moving inconspicuously in low-visibility
clothing. I'm not confident I could see an individual at 600m in those
circumstances (bear in mind that all my shooting was done with iron sights and
the vast majority of this sort of rifle was so equipped). Leaving aside smoke,
fog, darkness, dust etc., in how many circumstances does one have 600m of
effective visibility, unobstructed by trees, hedges, walls, jungle, folds in
the ground etc.?
Assuming I've acquired my target, then I'd be supposed to lay my sights on it,
control my breathing, take first pressure and finally fire a round (please be
patient if my description is a bit off, I haven't handled a rifle in more than
thirty years). Not too hard on the target range, but more difficult I suspect
after running fifty metres to the firing position, and while the other side is
shooting back.
I've read that one of reasons for the introduction of assault rifles firing
intermediate power cartridges was that wartime studies had indicated that
engagement ranges under 200m were the norm. That feels about right, though
I've got a lot of respect for anyone who can hit a target at that range on the
battlefield while someone is shooting back at them...
> A third candidate for this category is the submachine gun <SNIP>
Can you really hit anything smaller than the proverbial barn at 150m with an
SMG? On purpose, that is? I fired a Stirling a couple of times, and I'd say
maybe 20m. My late father, who trained on the STEN gun, said the fixed sights
were nominally set to 100yds, but that
20-30yds was regarded as more realistic.
I'm guessing that even if some future infantryman were equipped with
a hypothetical telescopic-sighted laser "rifle" which could zap the
enemy at a 2000m with no windage or bullet drop, real engagement ranges would
be capped by considerations of visibility, cover, tactics etc. at a lot less.