Marksmanship

"I know several guys who can shoot tacks off of targets at 50m. Hitting a man
sized target out to 400m isn't that hard"

Yes, but the tacks rarely, if ever, shoot back -- which makes all the
difference in the world.

                -M

> "I know several guys who can shoot tacks

Tacks also don't move, nor do they have the annoying habbit of hiding from
you ;-)

> On 13-Jul-99 at 11:20, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker (schoon@aimnet.com) wrote:

Tacks are easy, I could (back when I was hunting) have done the 50m tack thing
and nobody would have been terribly impressed. The fact that I
was about 50% on a running squirrel at 15-20meters was impressive, if
that gives you a shooting indication. 400 meters if they know you are there
would make it extremely difficult to hit anything even if they weren't
shooting back.

> Roger Books wrote:
wrote:
> > >"I know several guys who can shoot tacks

There was a very interesting article on the reaction of people to stress and
killing on the radio here a while back, worth reading. Under enough
stress, _everything_ involving complex motor skills becomes much much
more difficult.

As Clauswitz said, (approximately) "In war everything is simple, but those
simple things are so very complex."

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s23921.htm

> There was a very interesting article on the reaction of people to
A book by Grossman, entitled "On Killing" is also interesting.

> Chris Lowrey wrote:

Heh.  It's a conference speech _by_ Grossman.

(There's also a Real-audio file of the whole speech)

> On 13-Jul-99 at 11:20, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker (schoon@aimnet.com)
wrote:
> >"I know several guys who can shoot tacks

Exactly. The short ranges in FMA are quite deliberate, to a) reflect a lot of
the things that have already been mentioned on this thread and b) more
importantly, to make the game WORK. "Realistically" long ranges (ie, from
ideal firing range data) are a pain when you are trying to balance a game
of skirmish fire-and-movement, so I kept them down to what seemed to fit
the game situation - fast-moving street fights with a lot of stress,
confusion and the bad guys firing back at you. I think I remember reading
somewhere that most US Police shootouts happen at something like five metres
range or less. Of course, almost ANY of the weapons in FMA (even some of the
pistols!) can theoretically get a bullet from one side of the table to the
other, if not
a good deal further than that - but this simply doesn't work well as a
game.

> >On 13-Jul-99 at 11:20, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker (schoon@aimnet.com)
wrote:
> >> >"I know several guys who can shoot tacks

If you want some other examples just watch those "Worlds's Craziest Police
Vidoes" or something like that. I saw one the other night where a pair of cops
pulled over a car and the passenger pulled a gun on the cop. He had it pressed
against the cop's neck. For some reason he gets out of the car, still with the
gun on the cop who then precedes to twist out of his grip and pull his gun.
The guy takes off running and the cop empties an entire clip at him. The guy
escaped. He was no more than three feet away from the cop when the cop started
shooting.

> confusion and the bad guys firing back at you. I think I remember

Eleven feet average, and in bad light.

From: edens@mindspring.com (Matt Edens)
Subject: Marksmanship

"I know several guys who can shoot tacks off of targets at 50m. Hitting a man
sized target out to 400m isn't that hard"

Yes, but the tacks rarely, if ever, shoot back -- which makes all the
difference in the world.

** True. That is why we have suppresion counters, potentially morale checks,
etc. Point being I didn't make up the effective ranges that the Pentagon
invented and Colt and other combat rifle designers these
days sort of spec to. 400-500m is sort of the limit expected for
modern small arms combat (with rifles anyhow, although greater ranges are
possible). It'll be less than this in areas where visibility is limited. But
even so, having a rifle with a max unaimed (by that I mean snap shots) range
of 72m does seem a little bizarre to me...

** I seem to recall CF range days where you'd execute snaps at 50,
100, or even 200m+. Having a max range of 72m just strikes me as a
little off. Tacks don't shoot back, but if I can only hit out to 72m, maybe
I'd be better of firing tacks... <g>

> Thomas Barclay wrote:

> ** True. That is why we have suppresion counters, potentially morale

In the US Army, effective small arms range is considered 300 meters,
though the M4/M16 obviously hits out farther. (But not really the M203)

> ** I seem to recall CF range days where you'd execute snaps at 50,

We what are you guys defining as snap fire. The US marksmanship tables has
targets from 50m out to 350 meters. If you are lucky enough to fire on an
automated range that includes pop are targets instead of stationary. Half your
rounds are fired from porne supported (where the weapons and fires rets on
sandbags, or whatever) and the others half in unsupported where you don't rest
the weapon on anything. (BTW, an urban legend (for lack of better term) is
that you can't fire the M16 by resting it on the mag. That is bs. There is
never any reason to fire the weapon from the prone unsupported position. For
some reasons they still
teach that in teh reg marksmanship course though in SF/Delta/UDT that's
been tossed out the window for years.

Anyway I digress. What we consider snap fire is that you are walking along
with weapon at low carry and a target presents itself, at whatever range. You
have to bring the target up to engage immediately without really aiming
(except for the front site). With that in mind 75m is reasonable since a
standing unsupported shot at a target over 75m in anything less than a second
is not really a "snap fire". It's taking aim at something in a proper way. Not
taht it can't be done, but normally you are talking about what the average
shooter can do, (since that's what the world's made up of) not mister IMPS
champion. IMO.

> In a message dated 7/13/99 9:40:39 PM EST, laserlight@cwix.com writes:

<<
Eleven feet average, and in bad light.

> [quoted text omitted]
with a great many rounds expended

In a message dated 7/13/99 10:30:49 PM EST, Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca
writes:

<< Point being I didn't make up the effective ranges that the Pentagon
invented and Colt and other combat rifle designers these
 days sort of spec to. 400-500m is sort of the limit expected for
modern small arms combat (with rifles anyhow, although greater ranges are
possible). It'll be less than this in areas where visibility is limited. But
even so, having a rifle with a max unaimed (by that I mean snap shots) range
of 72m does seem a little bizarre to me... >>

People hit with rounds out past 100 meters or so are usually hit by bi or tri
pod weapons if it was aimed at them, or a sniper round, or a round that was
fl0oating by aimed (or unaimed) elsewhere and just really really wanted a
home. aimed fire ranges and maximum effective ranges are far different under
fire than they are on the testing range.

> On 14-Jul-99 at 11:05, ScottSaylo@aol.com (ScottSaylo@aol.com) wrote:

I believe (back to those old NRA mags) that an M16 was basicly unusable for
hunting at ranges beyond 100 meters. Seems the bullet tumbles after about 100
meters so hitting anything beyond that range is sheer
luck.  (Well, they were testing a non-auto version of the M16, AR15?).
I wonder what the Pentagon claims for ranges on an M16.

In a message dated 7/14/99 10:11:47 AM EST, books@mail.state.fl.us
writes:

<<
I believe (back to those old NRA mags) that an M16 was basicly unusable for
hunting at ranges beyond 100 meters. Seems the bullet tumbles after about 100
meters so hitting anything beyond that range is sheer
 luck.  (Well, they were testing a non-auto version of the M16, AR15?).

I wonder what the Pentagon claims for ranges on an M16.
> [quoted text omitted]

Tumble really only becomes a factor if the round clips something, brush,

flesh whatever this starts the round tumbling. I would trust the M-16 on
a clear hunting shot at maybe 250 yards, on auto burst maybe 200 yards MAX.

Howdy!

> On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Ground Zero Games wrote:

> Exactly. The short ranges in FMA are quite deliberate, to a) reflect a
more
> importantly, to make the game WORK. "Realistically" long ranges (ie,

Yup. Most police snipers engage targets at 40m, rather than the
300+m that military snipers train for.  This is why in the last 5 years,
police snipers have been going to dedicated firing schools that meet their
needs, rather than training with the military.

        I have personally known police in Metro-Dade and Valousia
Counties who have been involved in firefights. Most less than 8 meters, with
LOTS of shots exchanged. With fewer hits. And these were good shooters. As
earlier posted in this thread, manuevering targets who fire back make life
difficult. Also a big component is nerves and adrenaline.

        Ken

Howdy!

> On Wed, 14 Jul 1999, Roger Books wrote:

> I believe (back to those old NRA mags) that an M16 was basicly

> I wonder what the Pentagon claims for ranges on an M16.

I believe that was the 1 in 12 inch twist on the old '16s. The A2
has a 1 in 7 twist, which over-stabilizes the bullet.  It is more
accurate and longer ranged, but it has a decreased wounding potential.

        Ken

"but if we read historical accounts of skirmish battles between seasoned
troops (esp I'd say eastern front WW2, Korea, etc), we will find that many
engagements of hostile targets occur successfully out beyond 200m."

Maybe so, but who designed and adopted the first modern assault rifles with
under 200 meter ranges in mind?  The Germans and Russians (the MP/SG 42
and its Russian cousin the, AK series). Long range fire can be effective, but
mostly when it's the SAWs firing, not the personal weapons (a lesson the
Germans digested during WWI, hence the MG34 & MG42 and the tactical doctrine
they built around such excellent weapons).

Of course we're also talking sci-fi here so all those HUDs,
gyrostabilizers, laser pointers, etc, should maybe count for something.

> In a message dated 7/15/99 8:12:37 AM EST, edens@mindspring.com writes:

<<   Long range fire can be effective, but
mostly when it's the SAWs firing, not the personal weapons (a lesson the
Germans digested during WWI, hence the MG34 & MG42 and the tactical doctrine
they built around such excellent weapons).
> [quoted text omitted]

The bi-pods, tripods, longer heavier barrels, better sights and tactical

imperatives for putting the sqad assault weapon in the hands of him who is
most likely to actually pull the trigger in combat makes it the primary killer
in platoon actions. It always has been back to the BAR, Bren and Lewis guns.
The rifle is for personal defense and up close work.

I hate to say it but I think you guys are thinking a bit too hard here.
There's a little bit too much denigration of infantry rifle fire going on. Not
to take away from the correct assumption that platoons build their bases of
firepower around MGs etc, but the rifle plays a vital role even today. Those
on the list that have spent five minutes in the infantry can attest to that.
To imply that rifle fire is ineffective outside of point blank range is
ridiculous. However it's effectiveness should be a determind by troop quaity.
Particularly in a skirmish level game like this the ranges will more or less
be within acceptable distances (BTW I like the close medium long range band
idea someone through out there.)

"Maybe so, but who designed and adopted the first modern assault rifles with
under 200 meter ranges in mind?"

And regarding modern assault rifles, such as the AK, M16, FAMAS, SA80 (fired
them all extensively), sure they are designed for closer in work particularly
on
burst/auto, but all are quite capable of hitting targets much farther
out, are designed to, and the soldiers are trained to. When people start
throwing "well in this or that battle, average enagement range is only X
meters", maybe the question should be asked: "what is the average visibility
range by the terrain?" If most of the time you don't even see the enemy until
100 meters or less out due to terrain visibilty constrictions, then that is
more a limiter on rifle effectiveness than the weapon itself OR the guy using
it. Wargamers are notorious for having these billiard ball clear tables
interspersed with LOS obstacles and rarley other LOS factors like smog, haze
or just natural folds and vegetation in openb terrain. If you wnat to limit
rifle fire you'd be more realistic to do it that way! <grin>.

Los

> ScottSaylo@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 7/15/99 8:12:37 AM EST, edens@mindspring.com

> Los wrote:

Yes. I'm thinking of adding a range dice to the defender, far
away: D12 -
close: D4. So Elite troops far away from the firer, roll D12 and D12 for
defence. Untrained civilians close to the firer roll D4 and D4. The target
picks the roll they like.

Weather and terrain, perhaps add a D4 - D12 at all ranges to the
target's
defence/dice?