On Thu, 14 May 1998 23:14:50 -0600 tlsmith@micron.net (Terrance L.
Smith) writes:
> RE Stargrunt, there was a thread awhile back that related to low tech
Most bolt action military rifles were.30 cal (7.62mm) and the old mussel
loaders were even larger calibers (.56cal? 14.22mm?) I would suggest it would
be more accurate to have a higher Impact d10 or d12 even to reflect the
heavier calibers.
> will have a chance if they outnumber the high tech unit (perhaps a
Why not give the low tech troopers really good close assault weapons like
bayonets, entrenching shovels (re:WWI) and or a shot gun or two. I beleive
these would be classed as terror weapons.
> I may allow bugles or whistles for communication with a range of 12
YES, good idea, I may steal it.
> I have the figures now and plan to run a playtest sometime in the next
I am setting up a Bosnian scenario: A NATO light inf plt vs 2 much lighter
militia plts. I think it will be a pilot recovery mission.
Militia Pltn: an RPG man, a couple of shot guns, and AK's>>> 3 sqds, 1 LT With
the shot guns they will be devastating at close assault! Big sqds
9/12 men.
NATO Pltn: 3 6/7 man sqds, a MG & sniper team (Lt & Sqd sargent for HQ
sqd!)
Suggestion: put a couple snipers on one side or another to balance it out,
from what I have seen snipers can really make a difference (If they live.)
Give the low tech troopers a +1 to the In Position die roll for local
terrain knowledge (or training.)
Put a medic in a plt or squad to get the +1 die roll for wounds.
> You wrote:
> Most bolt action military rifles were .30 cal (7.62mm) and the old
Nao, can't believe that a black-powder weapon has same impact as a
gauss rifle. Larger caliber, but _much_ lower muzzle velocity. Leave
it d8 or so.
> Why not give the low tech troopers really good close assault weapons
I >beleive these would be classed as terror weapons.
Feh. Not likely. We already discussed this. Bladed weapons are already taken
into account in the reaction and confidence checks in the normal Stargrunt
rules.
> NATO Pltn: 3 6/7 man sqds, a MG & sniper team (Lt & Sqd sargent for HQ
Which NATO forces have such _small_ squads? I know US Light Infantry
is 9-man squads. USMC is 13, IIRC. Plus US Army platoon HQ is (LT,
PSG, RTO), MG team (2xM-60 teams, SAW, M-203) and often a medic. The
only time you'd have a 6-man squad is a US Army mechanized infantry
platoon, and they 1)Wouldn't go on a pilot recovery unless they were already
close to it, 2)Would bring their Bradleys along for fire support, 3)Not many
Serbs would be stupid enough to tangle with
that-four 25mm chain guns will ruin your day. Plus NATO forces have a
nasty tendency to have air support on call when doing stuff like this.
It's a good scenario idea, but to call the hi-techers NATO causes too
many problems.
Any of you ever read teh first Honor Harrington book by David Derake? (On
Basilisk Station) It covers a great Low tech scenario where the low tech gs
were supplied with a sort of musket by a rival power to assist in a revolt
they were formenting on a planet. The aliens were pretty big so the muskets
were VERY powerful and there were so damn many of them (one humen wave had
like 10000).
> Los wrote:
> Any of you ever read teh first Honor Harrington book by David Derake?
(On
> Basilisk Station)
David Weber, not David Drake... Considering the amount of discussion regarding
an adaption for Full Trust to the Harrington universe on this
list not too long ago, the answer has to be "yes" :-/
> It covers a great Low tech scenario where the low tech gs
Lethal range (against light body armour; not much effect against power armour)
somewhere between 200 and 300 meters.
> and there were so damn many of them (one humen wave had like 10000).
"The* Medusan wave. The fighters in that wave were all the revolting Medusans
there were. ("Revolt" isn't exactly accurate, though, since the Manties had
never imosed any sort of political control over the planet. Think "holy war to
cleanse the planet from infidels", but the net result
is of course pretty similar :-)
The three ground battles in "On Basilisk Station" are pretty dull IMO -
one assault on a mined facility (the facility wasn't defended, but blew up
when the attackers got close killing half of them), one fight between most of
the native army and a single VTOL (the VTOL got careless and was
shot down; net result: 12 dead humans, 400+ dead natives), and one big
slaughter (10000+ warriors against roughly one infantry battallion,
partly in power armour, with IFVs, integral light artillery and heavy air
support... no casualties on the high-tech side, it seems). Even though
the natives were drugged enough not to feel neither pain nor fear I don't
think those battles would be very fun.
Later battles, though - non-drugged Stilties, say raiding nomads (*very*
good guerillas and camo experts, even against pretty good high-tech
equipment) with those muskets against small police forces with light
weapons, could be fun :-)
Later,
[quoted original message omitted]
> Later battles, though - non-drugged Stilties, say raiding nomads
Just look at the Russians versus the Afghan Tribesmen for that. I'm not an
expert on it by any means but it looked to me like the Russians took a
hammering despite having the better technology.
> Later,
> Niall Gilsenan wrote:
> Just look at the Russians versus the Afghan Tribesmen for that. I'm
Well that's not necessarily the case, they had teh exact same weapons and
technology as the Russians at tehlower levels. They just lacked the numbers,
soem of the commo gear, rdf, ew, heavy equipment and weapons. they did have
those shiny nice new stingers though <g>.
We're talking more along the lines of spear armed zulus vs rifle and artillery
armed brit troops. That's a technology difference.
In a message dated 98-05-17 09:07:04 EDT, various peoples write:
> Just look at the Russians versus the Afghan Tribesmen for that. I'm
> Well that's not necessarily the case, they had teh exact same weapons
Well, the Mujahedin had a lot of varied weapons, from black powder &
pre-WW1
single shot bolt actions, up to AK74s captured from Soviets and acquired from
Democratic Republic of Afghanistan forces who defected. Vehicles were never in
any sort of supply. Anything more complex than a field radio was nearly
non-existant, until late in the war. Until the Stingers began to
migrate in-
country, the Russians were winning. Admittedly, it was more like creating a
solitude than a victory; they just sort of depopulated the areas that they
wanted to control. I think that by the Russian withdrawl there were more
Afghanis in Pakistan, than in Afghanistan. It was a well executed invasion
(some neat dirty tricks), followed by a brutal prosecution of a war against
the resistance. It has provided a lot of source material for DS2/SG2
battles.
A moderate-tech force with medium motivation against a much less
well-equipped
force, with high motivation and excellent stealth techniques.
> Niall Gilsenan wrote:
...snip...JTL
> Just look at the Russians versus the Afghan Tribesmen for that. I'm
> Niall Gilsenan,
Not meaning to be critical, but... The Afghani tribes were able to defeat the
Russians because the tribes
used the principal of 'Local superiority' to the maximum. The weapons
the tribes used were Russian and so 'tech level' is the same. The tribes fall
into the light infantry catagory and the Russians into the
heavy/mechanized/armored infantry catagories.
The average DS2/SG scenario (assuming equal points) looks like
this:
1000 points of tribal light infantry attacking a patrol/platoon
of mech/armored infantry on a road. The patrol has repeated the same
pattern for the past month and is feeling quite secure in this
pacified area. The tribals have small arms/GMSL and other portable
weapons (mines, demo charges...).
1000 points of mech/armored infantry in APCs on a road.
possibly a small tank or two. The scenario opens when the lead tank is rolled
over by a
command detonated (wire) charge on the road. The tribals fire
the GMSLs at the now stopped APCs. The surviving Mech infantry
dismount and try to shoot it out with the tribesmen. Surrounded,
outnumbered at least four to one the outcome is always the same. The tribesmen
have attacked at a point where even if the patrol can get a message off, air
assets will not arrive until after sundown and ground forces will be an hour
or more behind. If any changes happen to the patrol composition or the
schedual, or if air assets are in the area, the attack does not occur TODAY.
Any questions?
Bye for now,
> You wrote:
> Just look at the Russians versus the Afghan Tribesmen for that. I'm
Sure. But you can look at:
Boers vs. Brits Zulus vs. Same Assorted Indians vs. US
Afghans vs. Brits (second go-round, first was a bit unsat)
Assorted Indians (subcontinental, not American) vs. Brits Tartars vs. Russians
Assorted Africans vs. Assorted Europeans Chinese vs. Brits Spartacus vs.
Romans Jews vs. Romans Serbs vs. Ottomans FMLN vs. El Salvador
NLF vs. USA (Special Case--but after '68, not a single NLF operation
was launched. PAVN only)
and a _LOT_ of other cases where insurgents got their ears pinned back
regardless of technology. A sucessful insurgency requires massive external
support, internal political troubles among the regular government, and a
willingness to take horiffic casualties. Even when a guerilla war is
sucessful, the nation is so often wrecked so badly that it's essentially
meaningless.
Guerilla warfare is NOT a magic bullet, and can be easily defeated if you've
got the political will to do so. And it seems to me that most
of the Great Powers of the Dirtside/Stargrunt/Full Thrust universe have
the will in spades.
> You wrote:
> You may wish to reconsider this; the British Martini Henry fired a
The soft >lead projectile deforms immediately on impact and due to the large
>projectile weight will impart a very large amount of energy to the >wound. A
lot of heavy caliber black powder weapons are like this.
First, Impact die roll represents, among other things, armor
penetration. No low-velocity lead slug is going to penetrate plastic
composite body armor. Not gonna happen.
> Lo-tech is relative but should not be equated to Low Effectiveness;
The >rules give a Lo-Tech assault rifle a FP of 2 and Impact of d8.
This >reperesents the M16/AK47 of the 70/80/90s. Not too difficult to
believe >that the Impact of the Martini Henry could be a d10. It is the FP
rating >of 1 I might contest. ROF of how many rounds a minute? Difficulty in
>reloading kneeling or lying?
Note that a hunting rifle of the 22nd Century has a d10. That
represents, if my experience with modern hunters is _any_ guide, at
least a.30 caliber rifle with a sizable load behind it. Of modern powder. You
put black powder in there, and I have to argue for the d8.
FP of .5, IMHO. 2 is semi-auto/burst fire/auto. 1 is bolt-action.
Breachloading single-shot should be .5, and a muzzle-loader .25.
IMHO.
On Sat, 16 May 1998 10:38:25 -0500 (CDT) jatkins6@ix.netcom.com (John
> Atkinson) writes:
> Most bolt action military rifles were .30 cal (7.62mm) and the old
If you read some American Civil War history you would find out how mistaken
that statement was. A one ounce Minnie ball was something of a
A-- kicker. They did so much damage that the idea of "removing the
bullet" was a rare thing, they just cut off the limb that was hit (because the
damage was so great).
> Why not give the low tech troopers really good close assault weapons
Sorry John, I believe you are still wrong. If agreed upon, or part of the
scerario they can be classed that way. After all a Navy Seal with a Knife
would scare any normal man, but me with a knife makes you look for the missing
dinner plate.
Bladed weapons are
> already taken into account in the reaction and confidence checks in
Yes but see above.
> NATO Pltn: 3 6/7 man sqds, a MG & sniper team (Lt & Sqd sargent for
My thinking, if you would have asked, was that you run a stripped down team
for the best possible reason: balance the scenario!!!!!! There are one or two
practical reasons also. One is that they left the rookies and loud mouths at
home. You don't send any but the best on deep penetration missions, and it's
no time to train them.
> nasty tendency to have air support on call when doing stuff like this.
Again to repeat myself, I'm playing a game and I need to have balanced
scenarios. This is a good one.
> It's a good scenario idea, but to call the hi-techers NATO causes too
Yes it is a good idea, but there aren't too many side with those kinds of
troops so I'm left with NATO. I certainly can't call them NVA, besides I think
NATO troops are that good and smart enough to do it that way.
I'm interested in small unit actions, set in the present. Does anyone else
have any? I would certainly enjoy hearing about them.
> On Sun, 17 May 1998 09:06:13 -0400 Los <los@cris.com> writes:
Actually you have to add one more factor, the terrain. I saw a film clip of a
Russian vehicle sitting on the road and not being able to raise the barrel
high enough to hit the Afgans sitting high up on the slope. The afgans were
shooting at the poor Russian draftees huddled around their vehicles with AK's
and the vehicles were pounding a stretch of empty hillside just below the
Afgans. I know it sounds weird but the Russki's built their equiptment for the
flat plains of Russia and their equiptment refects this. That is one of the
many reasons they did so badly.
> In a message dated 98-05-17 17:59:48 EDT, Tom Hughes writes:
<< Actually you have to add one more factor, the terrain. I saw a film clip of
a Russian vehicle sitting on the road and not being able to raise the barrel
high enough to hit the Afgans sitting high up on the slope. The afgans were
shooting at the poor Russian draftees huddled around their vehicles with AK's
and the vehicles were pounding a stretch of empty hillside just below the
Afgans. I know it sounds weird but the Russki's built their equiptment for the
flat plains of Russia and their equiptment refects this. That is one of the
many reasons they did so badly.
> [quoted text omitted]
A bit of an idiosyncracy, this, but fun in a one-off game. I _think_ it
was
the BMP-1 (Armored Infantry Vehicle) that had a restricted elevation on
it's main gun. This was a real liability in Afghanistan, both in mountainous
areas
and in driving through built-up areas (you'd think they would learn...).
This
was fixed in the next iteration of the BMP, the -2. But they still had
a nasty problem of blowing the heads off of their own infantrymen; the
BMP-1 &
-2 were of very low profile, and cannon, when level or depressed to
shoot at targets on a similar elevation level, was right at head height...this
was
later addressed in the BMP-3.
Anyway, if this was early war, the draftees are waiting for the Hinds to come
and plaster the indigs. Late war, they're just waiting...
[quoted original message omitted]
> You wrote:
> Nao, can't believe that a black-powder weapon has same impact as a
Leave >>it d8 or so.
> If you read some American Civil War history you would find out how
OK, I'm coming from a Traveller background, where your 4mm gauss rifle has a
muzzle energy of 3,500 joules, from a muzzle velocity of 3,740mps. At close
range that will punch a couple cm of steel.
Compare to a muzzle velocity of what for that one-ounce Minie ball
(accent over the second i). The whole amputation thing was becaue of
the low technology level of medicine at that time--a smashed bone
_would_ infect. If being able to kill people were all impact measured,
everyone would have a d12. After all, a weapon that's not lethal tends not to
be adopted.
> Feh. Not likely. We already discussed this.
And a Zulu with a spear coming at me would make me reload a bit faster. See:
Rorke's Drift. A SEAL coming at me with a knife doesn't scare
if I've got about two seconds warning and a locked and loaded M-16. He
dies like anyone else. And if someone is five meters from me, I _can_
put a three round burst through the ten-ring. I'm not an Olympic class
shooter, but if you run right at me, I'd have to work to miss. Edged weapons
against missle weapons loose. Every time.
Rommel's words on this subject may prove illuminating. From his book,
"Attacks", describing an action as a platoon leader in 1914.
"Once again we rushed the enemy in the bushed ahead of us. A little group of
my former recruits came with me through the underbrush. Again the enemy fired
madly. Finally, scarcely twenty paces ahead I saw five Frenchmen firing from
the standing position. Instantly my gun awas at my shoulder. Two Frenchmen,
standing one behind the other, dropped ot the ground as my rifle cracked. I
still was faced by three of them. Apparently my men sought shelter behind me
and couldn't help me. I fired again. The rifle misfired. I quickly opened th
magazine and found it empty. The nearness of the enemy left no time for
reloading, nor was any shelter close at hand. There was no use thinking of
escape. The bayonet was my only hope. I had been an enthusiastic bayonet
fighter in time of peace and had acquired considerable proficincy. Even with
odds of three to one against me, I had complete confidence inthe weapon and in
my ability. As I rushed forward, the enemy fired. Struck, I went head over
heels and wound up a few paces in front of the enemy. A bullet entering
sideways, had shattered my upper left leg; and blood spurted from a wound as
large as my fist."
Doesn't sound like a bayonet charge terriffied those two Frenchmen. And if it
doesn't scare Frenchmen, who does it unnerve? In the closing notes to the
chapter, Rommel notes, "In a man to man fight, the winner is he who has one
more round in his magazine."
> My thinking, if you would have asked, was that you run a stripped down
Well, yeah... Gotta do that.
> loud mouths at home. You don't send any but the best on deep
The kind of units that go on deep penetration missions don't have dead weight.
> Yes it is a good idea, but there aren't too many side with those kinds
No, they're smart enough to bring enough firepower to do the job. That's less
'manly', but a lot easier on the troops, no?
> I'm interested in small unit actions, set in the present. Does anyone
Hrm... Russians trying to bull their way through Chechens? Green 3s
with lots of firepower, going up against blue/orange 2/1s with not much
but rifles and RPGs.
In a message dated 98-05-17 21:29:43 EDT, The People write:
<< >I'm interested in small unit actions, set in the present. Does anyone
> else have any? I would certainly enjoy hearing about them.
Hrm... Russians trying to bull their way through Chechens? Green 3s
with lots of firepower, going up against blue/orange 2/1s with not much
but rifles and RPGs. >>
Well, to properly simulate a DS2 Russian v. Chechen battle, first, if the
Russian player has a good grasp of combined arms operations, lobotomize him.
This should provide an accurate simulation of Russian operational style in
that little exercise. Keep telling the Russian that unsupported armor in an
urban area is a good idea.
The Chechens should have some GMS/Ls as well. A few tanks, air defense
and arty, for a later battle. I could go on, but it's too depressing.
> You wrote:
> Torso and Groin, and on some figures thigh. I agree that you won't get
And percentage of severing an artery is what percentage higher if
you're using a Springfield as opposed to an M-16A2? Lots of scope for
taking a round and living to tell the tale.
> You wrote:
> Well, to properly simulate a DS2 Russian v. Chechen battle, first, if
That works for a _lot_ of Russian wars. . . Lobotomize him, but give
him a brigade while his opponent has a platoon...
> The Chechens should have some GMS/Ls as well. A few tanks, air
Only if you're rooting for the Russians...:P
> You wrote:
> There was no use
> my fist."
> Doesn't sound like a bayonet charge terriffied those two Frenchmen.
> notes to the chapter, Rommel notes, "In a man to man fight, the winner
In a message dated 98-05-17 22:22:50 EDT, The Capitalist Running Dog
writes;)
<< Only if you're rooting for the Russians...:P >>
Seeing as how my area of study and interest is the Eastern Front, WW2, I'm
used to rooting for one Bad Guy or another. The whole Chechen bit was just
embarrasing. What a way to go out of the international scene; talk about a
Whimper as opposed to a Bang...
If anybody is interested, any good East Front book covering the tactical level
will provide a wealth of great DS2/SG2 scenarios, coving the whole gamut
of
possibilities - one reason why I like the thing. If anybody wants a
short list of book suggestions, email me.
Coming soon: More Nukes for DS2, and Dog Teams for SG2!!!
> Later battles, though - non-drugged Stilties, say raiding nomads
Hum. I may need to rethink. I have been thinking large squads in order to get
enough fire power for the low tech troops to have a chance. This puts me more
in the mind of the Boer War. I think hidden movement rules would be important
here. Has anyone tried to use hidden movement (beyond the sniper and hidden
deployment rules)?
[quoted original message omitted]
> You wrote:
> Coming soon: More Nukes for DS2, and Dog Teams for SG2!!!
Don't like nukes too much, but Dog Teams sound interesting.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> and a _LOT_ of other cases where insurgents got their ears pinned back
Not always true. One has only to look at the Eritrea to see that you can fight
a sustained guerrilla war with virtually no external support and come out on
top. Ethiopia had every advantage, include massive Soviet aid and they were
defeated badly. They gained their independence in 1994 and will probably
become one of the premier countries in Africa, mostly due to the quality of
their people and culture.
> You wrote:
> Not always true. One has only to look at the Eritrea to see that you
Dammit, I was hoping no one else had ever heard of Eritrea... And Soviet Aid
is a bit of an understatement, unless Foreign Aid now includes air support...
But anyway, Eritrea is very much the
exception that proves the rule--and I could also point out that
Ethiopia was also fighting an internal civil war at the same time.
And while they undoubtedly will be the African nation to watch in fifty
years, right now they are having a hard time becoming self-sufficient
in food and rebuilding what's left of the urban infrastructures that existed
in the 1950s. Of course, they could go back to doing what they
did the first half of the century--being one of the major places rich
Arabs go to get drunk, get laid, gamble away fortunes, and all the other stuff
the strict interpretations of Islam don't permit at home.
:)
> At 04:18 PM 5/17/98 -0500, you wrote:
> it d8 or so.
The reason they cut off the limb was because they didn't have any skilled
surgeons and the conditions were filthy. It was better to cut the limb off to
avoid infection (i.e. gangrene) than it was to try and keep a "puncture" wound
clean. There is a lot of "mysticism" regarding black powder firearms and while
they will do a fair amount of damage to an unarmored individual, none of them
has any where near the penetration of a modern military round of any caliber.
I shoot and hunt with black powder firearms and I can tell you that these
types of firearms have incredibly poor penetration. To illustrate I once shot
my.44 Navy model revolver (black powder) at a thin pice of steel, it could not
penetrate. I shot it with my 9mm and it went right through. The damage a
firearm does is a mix of velocity (greater force applied = greater velocity)
and mass, as mentioned before, many black powder weapons use bullets of large
mass, but incredibly poor velocity. Thats why most modern military rounds are
smaller, but have much larger velocities. (Plus they kick less) A point to
remember is that the force applied to your shoulder when firing a rifle is
approximately equal to the force applied to the object you shoot, its just
applied over a much smaller area and thus penetrates the object further.
In a message dated 98-05-18 10:00:08 EDT, you write:
<< >Coming soon: More Nukes for DS2, and Dog Teams for SG2!!!<
Don't like nukes too much, but Dog Teams sound interesting.
> [quoted text omitted]
The nukes are just a slight expansion (different sizes, some new rules) for
battlefield use (arty/air deployed). I guess it's a holdover from the
Bad Old Days, but I was always fascinated by the ramifications of battlefield
use of small nuclear munitions; ie, the Davy Crockett 0.1kt round for the 80mm
recoilless rifle, the 155-203mm atomic cannon rounds, etc. And I've
probably
played too much Ogre/GEV to worry about collateral damage anymore...
The Dog Teams (SG2) were something that came to mind while reading a recent
book about the use of dogs in wartime. They would seem to be an amazing asset
for recon units. Ral Partha makes a blister of dog minis under thier AD&D
line that are really good - 2 each Shepherd and Pit Bull types. They
will easily mount on an SG2 standard 1" diameter base with a SG2 fig. Some of
my PAUs seem quite appropriate for the job. One of their weaknesses is that
the
team is fragile - the dog (unless armored - probably not) can go down
easy,
and that pretty much puts the handler out of action - if they didn't
care about the dog, they wouldn't be doing the job. A medic might be able to
bring them back (sedatives, the right kind words, etc). If the handler goes,
the dog is totally useless. It might even attack the medic attempting to help
him. This apparently happened occasionally. Seeing as how I am moving a a
week, don't expect either of these for about 2 weeks. but they'll be the
better for the wait.
Off-topic grumble - The US is the only First World country without an
official monument to the canine war dead. This may seem silly, but it's
important.
C'mon, the Sovs/Russkies have monuments to their mine dogs (I will NOT
write those rules)!
As a Tanker, the rule is "if I can see it I can kill it". The US Army
did a survey of a Corps portion (@50km x 200km) of the inter-German
border and found that there were only a few hundred places that ATGM could be
used at full range (@4km). Most areas had an LOS of 1600m or less. WWII had
engagements closer for a couple of reasons, 1) Optics and rangefinding
technology and 2) penetration power of the rounds used. Most Allied tanks
could not penetrate at over 1000m.
Hope this helps,
Michael Brown
> You wrote:
> bastards. And who fires only one round?
A lot of people--remember those guys that got CMOHs? Betcha when
surrounded and outnumbered at those percentages you switch to semi and make
every round count.
> The only problem you get into with 5.56mm is in it's use with SAW.
It's a >little light for a MG round when you are firing at vehicles. At
Who shoots at vehicles with a SAW? Gotta be _real_ short on real
weapons to be that desperate.
> You wrote:
> Trust me I fired enough of both to know the difference. The 223 is a
A.22 can be a mankiller. A friend of mine who's a cop claims the single most
common weapon used in homicides is a.22 pistol. Sure,
it's not militarily useful, but most murders are comitted within 5-10
feet of the victim. I havn't checked his numbers, but I'll take his word for
it.
> You wrote:
> As an aside. I have a good friend who was a tanker (9 years combat
> at point blank? He said that whenever possible they would open up at
> threats at once. Tank fire and infantry. (the terrain there ranged
> One last war story. he related two engagements where they actually
> at point blank at night. Especially when the enemy was employing
A _lot_ depends on terrain, equipment, and doctrine. IDF doctrine is
to engage at long range--but they aren't stuck with 1950s Soviet junk
tanks. They also have a higher ratio of tanks to infantry than Eritrean
guerillas had, so depend more on tanks to kill enemy tanks.
They make quite a point of long-range fire. IIRC, some IDF Brigadier
on the Golan hit a bulldozer at 5-6 miles, firing indirect. But
engagement range is _always_ limited by terrain. If you can see that
T-55 at 5,300 meters, you kill it then. If you see it at 53 meters,
you kill it then. As for my Dirtside tables, they always are too damn
cluttered to use a HEL at max range.
> You wrote:
> of between 300 and 800 metres - very close considering the
Two words: Sand Dunes.
And on the Golan Heights, it was mostly knife-fighting range.
> You wrote:
Well... It would need lubrication. Which would attract sand. Not a problem in
balmy Canada, but us 'Mercans occasionally get sent to
Florida for Annual Training. . . But you are right--no @!#%$&@)#(%*%
carbon buildup.
Er to be a little more accurate; as the powder burns it produces an expanding
gas. This forces the projectile out the barrel. The
action/reaction is the projectile going in one direction against the
mass of the rifle in the other. In your rail gun you may or may not need a
fully enclosed barrel. Therefore, expanding gas is not an issue?
The Australian 5.56mm ammo is the SS109 round. Different projectile to the
standard 5.56; has a slightly different shape and has a penetrator core. The
SS109 round takes advantage of the higher twist rate in the Austeyer rifle
barrel. Using the standard NATO in barrels with a higher rifling twist gives
no greater accuracy.
Talking about small calibers; have a look at the.17 Swift round. This is a
very good round used over here for foxes and other "varmints". Very high
velocity and flat trajectory.
For what it's worth.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> engagement range is _always_ limited by terrain. If you can see that
Well that's where I disagree. You don't always open up at Max effective range.
That's a good way to get your ass wacked.Sometimes you want to suck them all
in before you kill them. Again it's situation specific. You fire at max range
and much of your quarry may escape, or pull back and call in heavy stuff on
you. The answer may be to suck them in and kill them close. Doesn't have to be
pointblank but neither does it need to be at max range. I mean you don't
spring an ambush against an enemy rifle platoon at 400 meters. You wait till
tehy get in close, so they can't escape. A tank enagement can be set up teh
same way. I've seen this happen many times at
JRTC and NTC. This is basic anti-armor tactics.Of course if you are
dealing with the massed tank attack against you, then firing at max range
might be the ticket, if you believe you are fighting an enemy that will press
forward regardless of loss. Check out FMF1 Warfighting or Leonard's The Art of
Manuever.
Re: Morale rules. (I know another tangent). With most wargames, most of your
battles are resolved through attrition, (regardless of the morale rules if
any). In real battles, you are defeating the enemy's morale or will to resist.
Inflicting the greatest shock in the shortest period of time. That's why to me
a good set of morale rules would show losses inflicted in a very short period
of time stopping forces as opposed to prolonged losses over a long period of
time. For example, a company losing 50% casualties over the space of four
hours, might still be combat effective, but a company losing 50% casualties in
four minutes is probably gonna pack it in.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> You wrote:
You should almost always be on semi anyway. One can fire more than one round
on semi. <g> Just shoot until the guy goes down.
> >The only problem you get into with 5.56mm is in it's use with SAW.
At
> Who shoots at vehicles with a SAW? Gotta be _real_ short on real
And how many real weapons do you think an infantry platoon lugs around? Maybe
a pair of AT4s. Several M203s and some MGs. You open up on targets (even
vehicles) with everything. Keeps the bastards buttoned up. About the SAW,
exactly my point. A heavier caliber squad MG would punch holes through
an APC has 300-400 meters. A SAW won't. Still I'm not dissing the SAW.
Before it you just had an M!6 AR (witha cheesy bipod) at the fireteam level..
> On Tue, 19 May 1998 15:06:22 -0700 Los <los@cris.com> writes:
I just thought of something that may throw some sand into this. Both a railgun
or a gauss rifle would throw up a wicked EMF pulse (noticeable for miles.) Any
detector system would light up like a Christmas tree, even if it wasn't tuned
to that. You might find that shooting the rifle would generate a counter
battery strike from someone looking for large power sources (like radar, high
powered commo gear, battlefield lasers, etc.) At the least you would have a
couple of RPV's and a recon team coming your way to find that energy spike.
P.S. If the barrel is open enough to spit out a projectile, it's NOT shielded.
P.P.S. Any shielding would involve a major ground, like standing in a stream,
and you're triggering how many kilovolts?
I'm sure there is a solution, but I can't think of one at the moment.
There are two types of rounds. The ball round refers to a copper jacket with a
lead core. The NATO (I may be using wrong terminology, it's what we called it)
round has a copper jacket with steel penetrator at the front of the round with
a lead tail. I don't know the exact ratio of lead to steel. From outside
appearances it would look the same (copper).
> -----Original Message-----
Oh, damn. I'd have to carry my cleaning rod. ;-)
> -----Original Message-----
I thought the round's design was copied in the AK-47? 7.62 instead of
7.92. Isn't the charge of the Sg44 halfway between a rifle and a pistol? And,
last question, wasn't the smaller round used because ranges were less than
what the standard 7.92 was made for and because of the need for an assault
weapon?
TIA
> -----Original Message-----
Hey John! Do you mean Camp Blanding? I've been there a couple of times for
training. Not as much sand as Canadian Bases (no joke) but the bugs
freaked the hell out of me ;-) Ever get a tick ;-)
> -----Original Message-----
OK, LOS had this right the first time.
NATO is an agreed upon standard for the specifications for the ammunition
being fired.
Ball is the type of round. Generally speaking you have Ball, Tracer, Incediary
(not often seen) and Armour Piercing (again not often seen).
There are a numerous NATO standards covering everything from truck fuel
through ammunition through administrative forms!
Mind you I think we have wandered sufficiently far enough from List subject
matter (ie GZG games) that maybe it should be taken off the list now?
> At 12:46 5/20/98, Glover, Owen wrote:
Whether it's expanding gas, a magnetic pulse or gravitic repulsion, the power
source makes no difference. What does is that Newtonian physics demands that
for every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction.
The difference in eletromag vs. chemical recoil is not a quantitative
difference, but qualitative. Assuming that the projectiles from each weapon
were equal in mass and accelerated to equal velocities in equal lengths of
time, the average recoil will be equal (also assuming weapon mass is the
same.)
The difference is in the impulse of the recoil. Given the time it takes to
accelerate the round to velocity, if we looked at a graph of force vs. time
for the chemical round, there would be a huge initial spike that dropped off
very raplidly; in other words most of the chemical round's acceleration takes
place in the first few milliseconds of the firing cycle.
Magnetic or grav-powered weapons, however, will over the same time have
a force vs. time chart that looks like a long mesa; a pulse up to the force
level, that level holds until the round leaves the barrel, then drops off
almost instantly.
Someone firing a machinegun feels recoil as if it were a jackhammer; repeated
sharp impulses. Someone firing a full auto railgun would feel a solid, steady
push, with a rhythmic *absence* in recoil as each round was cycled into the
chamber.
Of course now that I've gone into this massive diatribe, I'm wondering why
I bothered. Just draw the chits and count 'em, ne? >^_^<
Not too busy today mate? He He He.
> On Tue, 19 May 1998, Jim 'Jiji' Foster wrote:
> repeated sharp impulses. Someone firing a full auto railgun would feel
Actually, there need not even be the pauses. Because there's no gas pressure
to contain, you can chamber the next round while the previous one is still in
the barrel. If your barrel's long enough, you might even
start accelerating the second round before the first exits.
> On Tue, 19 May 1998, John Atkinson wrote:
> A .22 can be a mankiller. A friend of mine who's a cop claims the
While true, that is mostly because it's the single most common civilian
handgun, period.
> From the ballistics point of view, it's deadly enough. Some figures say
it's deadlier than more powerful rounds, partly due to surprisingly good
penetration (compared to pistol rounds like.38 special), partly due
complications arising from the lead bullets.
What it lacks is stopping power. It's not much of a consolation to know your
opponent will die of blood poisoning a day after he finishes disecting you.
I guess you don't count Mossad assassins as militarily useful, then?
> On 20 May 98, at 12:46, , Owen Glover wrote:
Expanding gas is not an issue in a rail/gauss weapon full stop. You
might get a shockwave passing down the barrel if the round goes supersonic
before it exits but
that's not going to be changed by a non-solid barrel.
Newton's Laws of Motion would suggest that regardless of the method for
accelerating a projectile there will always be some form of recoil - for
every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The difference may be in
the way that recoil is handled. As I understand it, the actual 'feel' of a
weapon's recoil is defined partly
by what the weapons moving parts do when the round is fired - the cycle
of the
breech as it were. With a Gauss/rail weapon there's no cycle really
necessary -
you could have an open slot at the back end that you pour the rounds into. If
this is the case, the recoil will be a force directly back down the length of
the barrel, which for an infantry rifle is a pretty perfect scenario if you
have to have recoil.
TTFN
Jon
> You wrote:
> I guess you don't count Mossad assassins as militarily useful, then?
No, they are spooks. Whole 'nother ball game.
> On Wed, 20 May 1998, John Atkinson wrote:
> >I guess you don't count Mossad assassins as militarily useful, then?
Militarily == on the battlefield? Well, I agree, I just wanted to point out
that.22LR *is* the weapon of choice for some professionals, not just a distant
third cousin to "real" guns.
> In a message dated 98-05-19 22:37:20 EDT, John writes:
<< As for my Dirtside tables, they always are too damn cluttered to use a HEL
at max range. >>
Unless you're shooting down some pesky whirlybird, or an interloping aircraft.
With proper air defense systems, they just don't live that long, heh, heh,
heh.
[Transcipt of VTOL commo]
Gunner/WSO: 'Hey, we're being painted by someth-'
{Transcript ends]
> In a message dated 98-05-19 22:45:54 EDT, Owen G writes:
<< In your rail gun you may or may not need a fully enclosed barrel.
Therefore, expanding gas is not an issue? >>
Still, you've got the physics of the thing; round goes downrange, gun wants to
go uprange. Equal, opposite reactions. And some of the electromag accelerator
demos I've seen, those things are moving *awfully* fast.
Sometimes it looks like the projectile disappears - it is moving faster
at the
get-go than your retinal refresh rate.
John spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Hey John! Do you mean Camp Blanding? I've been there a couple of
> > Well. . . It would need lubrication. Which would attract sand. Not
> > carbon buildup.
Hoi! Ever been to Dundern Saskatchewan? Or Suffield Alberta? Alberta and
Saskatchewan have a lot in common with deserts, and they have a rack of sand
(it gets in everything). Besides, Florida sounds like a good spot for
training.... especially if it is on a beach....
(*grin*).
And yes, dirt in these types of environments is always a problem. To
put this on a GZG like front - if you were playing a campaign
involving rough environments, you might make the purchase of reliable weapons
vs. unreliable ones (and other combat systems) a factor. You could cheap out,
but then you'd run the risk of failures at key moments due to equipments
inability to survive in a bad environment. There are numerous historical
examples of equipment that performs badly in environments the designers
overlooked.
Tom.
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay Software Specialist Police Communications Systems Software
Kinetics Ltd. 66 Iber Road, Stittsville Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 2036
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Software Kinetics' Web Page:
http://www.sofkin.ca
SKL Daemons Softball Web Page:
http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/softhp.htm
**************************************************/
You are using the wrong terminology because the NATO designation just means it
is a standard size for all NATOP weapons, like 9mm NATO ball or 7.62mm NATO
ball. If any of you guys are in the military (don't know about Aussies though)
just look on the side of any ammo can when you goi to the range. I did
negelect to mention that there is a AP round for the 5.56mm that we use in the
SAW. This is probably the round that you are talking about. It has a black
colored tip.
> John Skelly wrote:
> There are two types of rounds. The ball round refers to a copper
I said I was probably using the wrong terminology. I know they say NATO on the
side of ammo cans. I probably am refering to the round you
mention as a SAW (FN-MINI or C9 in Canada). If Canadians go to war we
will be using the round I described (copper jacket with stell penetrator
followed by lead).
I believe the Aussie (sorry can't remeber your name) had it right with the
SP### designation.
> -----Original Message-----
Los spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Re: Morale rules. (I know another tangent). With most wargames, most
You think so? I'm not sure, but if you look back historically, many units have
broken with less than 30% casualties. And even starting an engagement depleted
(a la Eastern Front WW2) can really impact morale. Both long and short term
losses have impact, and I hate to see units fighting to 50 or 75% casualties
when that rarely seems to have happened (I did say rarely, not never) in the
real world.
Also, I'd note that we treat morale checks as if the knowledge of lost
commanders and comrades was immediately known to the unit as a whole. If I'm
in rough terrain, I may well not know the commander and platoon sergeant have
been gunned down especially if I myself am engaged. I think the point is, a
ref is a good thing because he can make situational morale calls (so can two
mature opponents).
No morale system is perfect. And no morale system that encourages players to
do suicidal things is good either. And very few morale systems capture the
'momentum' of battles (the short term ebb and
flow of morale with events - could be casualties, could be a raise in
morale due to your unit overrunning a tough enemy). But that is such a
debatable set of rules, its probably not worth the agony.
Tom.
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay Software Specialist Police Communications Systems Software
Kinetics Ltd. 66 Iber Road, Stittsville Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 2036
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Software Kinetics' Web Page:
http://www.sofkin.ca
SKL Daemons Softball Web Page:
http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/softhp.htm
**************************************************/
Jim spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> The difference is in the impulse of the recoil. Given the time it
time
> for the chemical round, there would be a huge initial spike that
Except that if you want the high velocities for penetration and KE and you
want the high cyclic for volume of fire, then you're looking at actually
producing a *greater* sum of forces to accelerate the
rounds in a given time increment in a mag-gun than in a chem-gun.
Which translates to more total recoil.
> Magnetic or grav-powered weapons, however, will over the same time
In order to go hypersonic in a short barrel, and get a high cyclic, the time
the round will be accelerated will probably be SHORTER than
a matching chem-gun. Therefore the mesa will be pretty damn slim. I
agree with the shape, but I suspect it would be more like a high short step
function than a long shallow one.
> Someone firing a machinegun feels recoil as if it were a jackhammer;
As mentioned above, to get hyper sonic velocities, a high cyclic, and a
reasonable barrel length, you're going to end up with (I agree) a smooth push,
but it's going to start suddenly (since I assume you want your first round out
of the barrel as fast as any of the others) and keep pushing back at you VERY
HARD. This might be something that requires some sort of gas shock or some
sort of recoil compensation
system (gas?) perhaps - perhaps only viable on PA.
If the average grunty wants an easily controllable gun with a moderate steady
kick, he'll have to settle for lower velocities and lower cyclics (admittedly
this stuff may even be situationally adjustable) which is probably fine anyway
since you don't want to overpenetrate, and you can't carry (even with gauss
needles) an infinite weight of ammo.
In short, you may get better performance out of a gauss rifle, but it isn't a
miracle weapon (and it depends on low weight, low volume, high power source of
energy). It probably is basically the equivalent
of the SG2 advanced combat rifle, vs. the chem-gun normal assault
rifle.
Again, this all boils down to newton's laws regarding reactions and gravity
(as to how much weight a grunty can carry, hence how fast his gun should
fire).
Tom.
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay Software Specialist Police Communications Systems Software
Kinetics Ltd. 66 Iber Road, Stittsville Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 2036
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Software Kinetics' Web Page:
http://www.sofkin.ca
SKL Daemons Softball Web Page:
http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/softhp.htm
**************************************************/
Mikko spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> > >I guess you don't count Mossad assassins as militarily useful,
I take your point, but I don't want to be unduly sarcastic in suggesting that
a doctor (another "real" professional) might choose a scalpel, but I don't
think anyone was speaking in such terms. No army I'm aware of has made the
.22LR or the.22 short the calibre of choice for issue sidearms. Most military
spec ops probably use either a silenced.45 or a silenced 9mm with low velocity
rounds for controllability and tissue damage if they are using pistols at all.
5.56 NATO is an Assault Rifle round for modern infantry combat..22LR
is a varmit hunting round - you wouldn't use it on wild boar, deer,
bear, or the like. 7.62mm NATO is a man and light vehicle hunting round. If
you need to hunt elephants or helicopters,.50 BMG or.460 Weatherby Magnum are
appropriate.
In truth, it isn't the size, calibre or capability of the weapon that makes it
dangerous, its the carrier. His training, skill, and
experience can turn a .22 LR into a one-shot mankiller, or turn a
7.62mm full auto weapon into a combat ineffective ammo burner.
Tom.
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay Software Specialist Police Communications Systems Software
Kinetics Ltd. 66 Iber Road, Stittsville Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 2036
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Software Kinetics' Web Page:
http://www.sofkin.ca
SKL Daemons Softball Web Page:
http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/softhp.htm
**************************************************/
> On Wed, 20 May 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> I take your point, but I don't want to be unduly sarcastic in
I thought it self-evident I was talking about professional *killers*.
I'll try to make a point of being more specific in the future. And make that
firearm of choice.
> No army I'm aware of has made the .22LR or the .22 short the calibre
No army I'm aware of uses.600 H&H Nitro Express either, but that doesn't mean
any of these rounds couldn't kill a man.
> Most military spec ops probably use
They don't use pistols at all if they can help it. 9mm and.45 (and all
pistols with non-fixed barrel) are incredibly prone to malfunction with
the weight of the silencer attached -- nevermind that an effective
silencer also obscures your sights and is long enough to turn your pistol into
a stockless SMG. Better take a silenced MP5 if you can.
But still, "hush-puppies" are often .22LR guns.
> 5.56 NATO is an Assault Rifle round for modern infantry combat. .22LR
Actually, .22LR is good enough to administer coup-de-grace to elk.
> In truth, it isn't the size, calibre or capability of the weapon that
Well, I agree. If could have perfect shot placement all the time, even
relatively wimpy rounds will do. But usually undcer battlefield conditions you
have to take any hit you can, and have a weapon powerful enough to make most
of it.
I believe I already addressed the stopping power vs. killing power issue.
The AK-47 fires a 7.62x39 round, meaning it's 7.62mm diameter by 39mm
long. And this is the Russian or Chinese ammo, the stuff made for it. I don't
know what that guy was talking about referring to 7.63mm ammo. The only 7.63mm
I can think of is a pistol round.
On Wed, 20 May 1998 09:57:30 -0700 Tony Christney <acc@questercorp.com>
writes:
> At 12:19 AM 5/20/98 -0400, you wrote:
unsubscribe FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk