Magic-man say:
Does carrying the HAMR give the same penalties to movement that a SAW does?
(SG book enroute to CT, me stuck in PR). I would assume it does being an
oversized weapon.
[Tomb] Why yes. The penalties are identical. None.
[Tomb] Now, you could, if you were inclined, consider the guy lugging
the HAMR (if by himself) to be encumbered. That wouldn't be what one
would do for the average SAW (think Minimi/M249 - not _that_
encumbering!). But the HAMR is monsterous enough to make a one-person
lug rather unwieldy (and hence merit a reduction in movement).
[Tomb] Although in retrospect I agree with KH that your comment on belt
buckles and webgear was a little on the callous side (when looked at
dispassionately the next day), I also admit to having laughed heartily at it.
Part of what we do when we play war games is make all sorts of light hearted
remarks about very heavy subjects in the real world. Joking about nuking
things from orbit ought to be magnitudes more disturbing than your little
comment, yet they predominate at conventions. Black humor is something
fundamental to this type of gaming I suspect. If we all really sat and thought
about the families of these little lead guys, their orphaned children, their
widows, the effects of dropping artillery on the Nuns, whatever.... we'd
probably stop playing and start heavily drinking. I think we crack jokes about
it because it is in the nature of man to trivialize and weaken truly ugly
items so as to be able to cope with them. So let us try to keep some
perspective
collectively - it was a joke and on one level, it was funny (in that it
poked fun at the artificial distinction of men and materiel which has often
been ignored during real conflict).
CineGrunt at ECC:
[Tomb] I was there. My SAS watched the PBRs and Monitors serve as
excellent RPG targets repeatedly. Now, for the record: They were beautiful
Stuart models.... though I don't know what company produced them.
Sonic shattering attacks:
[Tomb] If your question was meant as how could you directly protect the
material, there are compounds which you could coat the shield in which would
make affixing this device problematic and which would break the sonic coupling
to the object. Good sonic coupling actually probably requires specific gels
etc (I've used expensive sonic transducers before). Putting up something with
poor sonic propagation capabilities and high resistance to adhesion on your
shield ought to be feasible.
[Tomb] Personally, if it was violent pinheads in body armour, gas masks,
and with metal bars, smoke bombs, and incendiaries (obviously geared for a
fight), I'd defend them using an active microwave barrier, sharpshooters, and
claymores. If these types show up and want to do
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 15:20:47 -0500, "Tomb" <tomb@dreammechanics.com>
wrote:
> [Tomb] Now, you could, if you were inclined, consider the guy lugging
I would agree with this and make the HAMR team encumbered. Okay, I'd encumber
one guy, if he was carrying it by himself. Probably wouldn't with two guys
carrying it.
> --- Tomb <tomb@dreammechanics.com> wrote:
> [Tomb] Why yes. The penalties are identical. None.
I would. An M-249 with bipod and tools weighs 7.718
kg (17.00 lbs). 200 round box magazine weighs 3.14 kg (6.92 lbs). Spare heat
shield, spare barrel assembly, and barrel bag weighs 3.178 kg (7 lbs). So a
SAW gunner with a combat load of 600 rounds is carrying a total of 29.598 kg
(44.76 lbs) Source is the operator's manual for said weapon.
The Barrett .50 cal M82A1 weighs much more --12.9 kg
(28.5 lbs). And that's just the rifle (according to
http://www.barrettrifles.com/rifles.html). Ammunition
is heavy as hell also. I can't find the numbers right
now, but a magazine of 10 rounds is probably about 2/3
the weight of the SAW magazines.
But wait, there's more! The overall length of the
M-249 is 1.35m (40.75"). Pretty handy, and there's a
collapsible stock version that's even shorter. The Barrett is 1.4478m, a total
of 57". IOW, nearly 5 feet long.
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 07:11:39AM -0800, John Atkinson wrote:
Minor addition error - 20.316kg total load. Lb total is correct.
John, I did not understand your post. "I would"...what?
Were you saying: A) A SAW (M249) gunner would be encumbered carring the weapon
by himself. B) A SAW gunner would be be encumbered carring just the weapon
(squad carring ammo). C) A SAW gunner would not be encumbered carring weapon
and ammo. D) Something else.
-----
Brian Bell
-----
[quoted original message omitted]
--- "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)"
> <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil> wrote:
D) I would NOT count a SAW gunner as encumbered, but I would most definitely
count a HAMR gunner as encumbered.
> --- Roger Burton West <roger@firedrake.org> wrote:
Oops. Comes of punching calculator keys too quickly.
> Brian Bell wrote:
> John,
I *THINK* he meant D) He would make a HAMR gunner encumbered.
3B^2
John A said:
I would. An M-249 with bipod and tools weighs 7.718
kg (17.00 lbs). 200 round box magazine weighs 3.14 kg (6.92 lbs). Spare heat
shield, spare barrel assembly, and barrel bag weighs 3.178 kg (7 lbs). So a
SAW gunner with a combat load of 600 rounds is carrying a total of 29.598 kg
(44.76 lbs) Source is the operator's manual for said weapon.
[Tomb] OTOH, how does this differ from poor little gruntie carrying his
C7, 300 rounds, maybe a GL, a bandolier or ammo-pack for 40mm Grenades,
some hand grenades, a spare belt for the SAW, bits of the mortar or LMG or
ammo for same, the Carl Gustav or ammo for same, etc. Point is,
standard infantry carry loads like this most times... (and _light_
infantry invariably carries more....). Then pile on 8-15 lbs of body
armour, medkit, bandages, dry socks, canteens, etc. and you've got a lot of
weight (as you well know John). I think this is standard 6" movement
SG2 infantry. Their _light_ (8" move) infantry is for guys with a rifle,
three or four mags, a buttpack, and not much else. Their encumbered rates are
for poor bastards lugging an HMG without enough guys, lugging a Carl G and
ammo by themselves, or equivalent things.
The Barrett .50 cal M82A1 weighs much more --12.9 kg
(28.5 lbs). And that's just the rifle (according to
http://www.barrettrifles.com/rifles.html). Ammunition is heavy as hell
also. I can't find the numbers right now, but a magazine of 10 rounds
is probably about 2/3 the weight of the SAW magazines.
[Tomb] .50 shells (assuming cased...) are very heavy. Caseless .50 would
be a lot lighter. But the Jaeger HAMR looks just about like a Barret in size.
Clearly a two man carry to be unencumbered. If one man is pigging it, he'd be
encumbered for sure. (I see Barret has a couple of
_lightweight_ *relatively speaking* models and a new muzzle brake that
supposedly gives the weapon not much more kick than a.22, but with fancy
sights, it'll still be a heavy beast). And if it ups to 15 or 20mm, that'll
not make it any lighter! (2d12 ought to require at least 20mm IMNSHO). I'd say
6" move for a 2 man HAMR team, 4" for 1 guy (and grunting at that!).
> From: "Tomb" <tomb@dreammechanics.com>
> [Tomb] OTOH, how does this differ from poor little gruntie
Tom, I think John's point was not to argue that the SAW was heavy or should be
an encumbrance, but to contrast this load to the Barrett load, in order to
justify making the HAMR an encumbrance.
3B^2
> --- Tomb <tomb@dreammechanics.com> wrote:
> [Tomb] OTOH, how does this differ from poor little
Right, where the Barrett is considerably heavier and bulkier. The point was to
contrast size and weight.
<snip rest of message where Tom basically comes to same conclusion I did>
Definitely warrants a reduction in movement in my book then.
Magic
> -----Original Message-----
> --- John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The Barrett .50 cal M82A1 weighs much more --12.9 kg
100 rds of.50 linked ammo is 30.25lbs..
Bye for now,
> John Leary wrote:
> > The Barrett .50 cal M82A1 weighs much more --12.9 kg
I didn't think the M82 used linked ammo. Then again, there is the incidental
weight of the magazine itself. Probably evens out.
3B^2
> --- John Leary <john_t_leary@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 100 rds of .50 linked ammo is 30.25lbs..
No links.
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
More than likely not.
I was only trying to establish a guideline for the weight of ammo from a
reliable (but historic) source.
I have a complete set of (Restricted) B-24 Manuals
from WWII.
Bye for now,