Oerjan wrote: <my replies are indicated with [Tomb]
> Example: LAW-80, RPG-18, M-72, Armburst, Panzerfaust
Yes, Armbrust (means "crossbow"). "Armburst" sounds rather painful for the
shooter <g>
[Tomb] All these years I've had this wrong. :(
The WW2 Panzerfaust fits into this category; the modern Panzerfaust 3 is more
a specialist support weapon like the CG. In its tactical use, I
mean - technically it's quite different from the CG.
[Tomb] I was thinking of the WW2 version.
> RR: ?
The Panzerfaust 3 and RPG-7 fit in here as well. OK, technically none
of Bazooka, Panzerschreck or Panzerfaust 3 is a "recoilless rifle" -
the first two are smoothbore rocket launchers, the latter a Davis Gun (also
smoothbore IIRC), rather than rifled recoilless guns. Not sure
about the RPG-7 - it's a recoilless gun like the CG, but IIRC it's a
smoothbore as well. The CG is a rifled recoilless gun, thus "recoilless
rifle".
[Tomb] Ah, but what would you call the PIAT?
All of the above weapons are reusable* shoulder-launched
anti-tank/support weapons with little or no recoil (regardless of the
physical principle which negates the recoil) which can fire many
different types of ammo - HEAT, HE, bunker-busters, smoke, illum. and
so on.
Unfortunately I don't think there's any spiffy acronym covering these
weapons without also covering a lot of disposable (IAVR-style) ones :-(
[Tomb] Hence MAW - Medium Antiarmour Weapon ?
> Ammo: Typically ? - How many Carl G rounds would a two man det
For today's CG, no more than 9 rounds. The loader can carry 4 in his backpack
and 2 in each hand, and the gunner can have one in the weapon. Not that
running around with a loaded CG is *allowed* (except possibly
in Brazil), but in a real fight soldiers are likely to do it anyway :-/
[Tomb] No rounds for the gunner? Slacker.... ;)
> I was wondering how people handled MAWs in SG2.
Hm? Working mostly with infantry weapons I read the acronym "MAW" as
"Multipurpose Assault Weapon", ie. something designed primarily to take out
bunkers and buildings but with at least some effect against (light) armoured
vehicles. From your suggested stats I guess that you're thinking of something
else, though?
[Tomb] Medium Antiarmour Weapon - Recoilless Rifles, Man Portable.
> I thought perhaps use the 12" range ands of vehicle mounted >>weapons
Impact 2D8* (if you don't mind throwing in non->>standard impact,
otherwise D12*). FP D10 (better sights than most >>IAVRs).
Um... at the moment all IAVRs have FP D10 already, so FP D10 can't be "better
sights than most IAVRs".
[Tomb] I have at least one reference to D8 Firepower - can't recall if
it is
the QR card or the text in the book - one of the two says D8 in my
version.
D10 or D8 - I just use different values to vary the weapons a bit. I'm
sure D10 is the value that both of these references should indicate.
> I go with range based upon crew quality. I don't use it as a guided
Um. Tom explicitly included the LAW-80 in his IAVR category, and it
certainly has a spotting rifle... not that I'd equate a spotting rifle
with vehicle-quality FC, of course :-/
[Tomb] I wonder how much accuracy the five shot spotter rifle on the
LAW-80
actually adds. It certainly highlights you to any infantry if it fires
tracer...
[Tomb] What I wondered specifically was how people handled the impact
and range of an RR. As I understand it, these weapons have longer range and
better sights than most IAVR systems (today) and therefore they need some
range boost - either 12" range bands, or 2x range bands like snipers
have...
or maybe 1.5x range bands... and they might or might not need a bigger impact
than D12*. This was what I was after... how do RRs in the real world
compare to IAVRs in range/penetration/damage terms - this was an area I
thought Oerjan was uniquely qualified to address because he is a ballistics
missile bomb rocket boom thingie guru....
> Barclay, Tom wrote:
> RR: ?
The PIAT was a spigot mortar, and had a recoil described variously as "very
heavy", "severe" and "atrocious". No rifling.
> All of the above weapons are reusable* shoulder-launched
MAW currently (ie., in today's real world) means "Multi-purpose Assault
Weapon". Examples are the USMC's SMAW (don't remember who makes it), our LMAW
AT4, Alliant Techsystem's AT8, the Panzerfaust 3 variant Bunkerfaust and the
HEDP round for the Carl Gustav (almost exactly the same round as in the LMAW
AT4). MAWs are primarily intended for use against buildings, bunkers and
infantry, but with a limited effect against light armoured vehicles as well.
As can be seen from the examples, the category covers both disposable and
reusable weapons.
I'd very much prefer to avoid use the acronym "MAW" for one
specific type of shoulder-launched infantry weapons in the game, when
it in reality refers to another type of externally very similar
shoulder-launched infantry weapons - or even to the very same weapon,
reloaded with another type of ammo :-/
> Ammo: Typically ? - How many Carl G rounds would a two man det
Not enough space on his back, and he needs both arms to carry the gun
(especially if he's got an expensive sight on it...) <shrug>
> I thought perhaps use the 12" range ands of vehicle mounted
Hm?
SGII p.34 "Generic Weapons Table" says D10; SGII reference card "Generic
Weapons Table" also says D10...
Ah, yes - the text on p.40, "Unguided Rockets", says D8. I suspect
that's a mix-up with the Multiple Launcher Packs (the over-shoulder
missile packs on PA suits) though; they have FP D8 according to the tables.
> I go with range based upon crew quality. I don't use it as a guided
So do I. It's supposed to add quite a lot of accuracy - essentially
it's a low-tech version of a laser pointer sight - and the time lapse
between the spotting rifle shot(s) and the real one is supposedly too short
for the enemy to react, at least until after you've fired the real shot...
though whether those theories are actually correct seems
highly debatable to me :-/
A LAW 80 sales brochure claims that the spotting rifle has "...five preloaded
rounds, any number of which may be fired without revealing the position of the
firer". While a 9mm tracer round is certainly considerably less revealing than
a 94mm rocket, it's not *that* stealthy...
> [Tomb] What I wondered specifically was how people handled the >impact
But it depends entirely on *which* "RR" you're talking about. The
variation between different re-loadable weapons is at least as big as
the one between different single-shot weapons - hell, the variation
between different ammo type for a single "RR" (eg. between the Carl Gustav 651
and 751 rounds, both HEAT but developed some 20 years apart) can easily be far
bigger than that between the "RR" and a
similarly-sized "IAVR" (eg. the Carl Gustav and the AT4... depending on
which Carl Gustav ammo you use in the comparison).
Some other examples:
The M72 is a single-shot rocket launcher with a range of 200-300m
(300-400 for the latest Raufoss versions), with the lower figure being
against moving targets and the latter against stationary ones; its
armour penetration is 250-350mm depending on the version.
The ex-Soviet RPG-7 is a re-usable recoilless gun (ie., uses the
recoilless gun operating principle) launching rocket-boosted grenades;
IIRC it is not rifled. It can fire loads of different ammo types - it
seems that every ex-WP army had its own variants, and a bunch of other
states (like Afganistan) make their own types as well - with warheads
ranging from HEATs of various sizes over HEDP and HE to smoke and even
thermobaric ("miniature fuel-air explosives"). Most of its HEAT ammo
types have ranges of 200-400m, with armour penetrations around 350mm -
ie., pretty much the same as the M72.
Is the RPG-7 an "IAVR" or an "RR"? Which ammo type for the RPG-7 are
you looking at? (Depends very much on which army you're looking at, of
course.)
The WW2 Bazooka (which you gave as an example of an "RR") had a range
of 100-300 meters (for moving-stationary targets), and an armour
penetration of about 120mm.
Depending on which HEAT ammo type you're talking about, the Carl Gustav
(which *is* an RR :-) ) can have a range of 300-400m and a penetration
of 300mm, or a range of 700-1000m (with rocket-boosted grenades) and
penetration of ">500mm" - the warhead designers are notoriously
reluctant to say what they're *really* capable of <g>
Can the Carl Gustav and the Bazooka use the same range bands and impact
die? Not easily, it seems. Even the worst CG HEAT ammo has 2-3 times
the range and penetration of the Bazooka.
Can the Carl Gustav and the RPG-7 use the same range bands and impact
die - both are recoilless guns which fire rocket-boosted HEAT grenades
(among other ammo types)? Can the Carl Gustav (or RPG-7) even use the
same range bands and impact die as *itself*, if you change to another HEAT
ammo type?
The heaviest-hitting "LAW" I'm aware of has a penetration in the
1100-1200mm range - that's enough to kill a T90 through its thickest
frontal armour, and to make an M1A2 or Leo 2 *very* worried. I can't
remember its name ("RPG-something" doesn't say very much, does it...)
or range at the moment, but it's a big Russian single-shot rocket
launcher. IIRC it weighs some 15kg, so it's about twice the size of a LAW 80
or AT4. Is this an "IAVR" or an "RR"?
> This was what I was after... how do RRs in the real world compare to
I probably am, at least on this list. But I can't give any meaningful answers
to questions of the type
"How does a station waggon compare to a car? Examples of cars are:
T-Ford, Land Rover, Volvo 240.".
(Yes, this example is exaggerated. Comparing weapons and ammo types
developed 50+ years apart isn't that much better, though...)
To use a DSII example: "Which is better, a GMS/L or an MDC?"
In order to give a meaningful answer to this, you'd need to know
* Which MDC is intended - a size/1 isn't exactly the same as a size/5?
* What target does the person intend to shoot at?
* What weapon platform is available - infantry, or a size-4+ heavy
tank?
...etc.
If the reloadable weapon uses anti-tank ammo, it can have a range with
good sights up to 50-100% better than an "IAVR" of the same caliber and
the same operating principle (recoilless gun, Davis gun, rocket launcher, and
the various combinations). With only basic sights the range could be the same,
or the "RR" could be a bit more accurate thanks to having a heavier barrel
(makes it less sensitive to disturbances; a heavier weapon often gains more
accuracy from a given advanced sight than a lighter weapon using the same
sight does.)
The penetration is identical to an "IAVR" of the same caliber and the same
generation of warhead.
The "IAVR" is almost certainly lighter than the "RR" with one single
round - though two "IAVRs" are probably about as heavy as or heavier
than one "RR" with two or more rounds, and definitely bulkier. The disposable
launch tube is considerably cheaper than the reusable one
(unless you compare a disposable US-built weapon to a reusable
Russian-built one, of course) - and to the politicians who have to pay
for the weapons, this is the most important difference.
HOWEVER, if you change the caliber (eg. from 66mm M72 to 84mm AT4 or
94mm LAW 80) and/or operating principle (eg. from M72 (66mm rocket
launcher) to Armbrust (Davis gun, IIRC 70mm, so close enough to 66mm to have
comparable warheads) or AT4 (84mm recoilless gun)), all bets are off. Note
that both of these examples fall completely in your "IAVR"
category, with no "RR"-type weapons involved.
If the "RR" does not use AT ammo but instead uses eg. HE or smoke, or
something else, you can't compare the weapons at all because they do different
things. *THIS*, not range and damage issues, is what I see as the main
difference between the disposable and the reusable types (apart from the cost,
which isn't very relevant to soldiers in combat): provided you brought the
right ammo you can use a Carl Gustav or an
RPG-7 as light artillery against infantry in the open a kilometer or
more away, to put a smoke screen in front of the enemy GMS position
that's threatening your tanks, etc - but you can't do that with M72s or
AT4s, 'cuz they don't come in HE or smoke versions.
You can have lots of different disposable weapon variants with common launch
tubes and different warheads, certainly. The Russian Shmel family (with smoke,
incendiary and thermobaric variants) is one example of this, the AT4 family
(currently with LAW (HEAT), MAW (HEDP) and incendiary variants) is another.
The logisticians tend to frown on this however, because all those extra
disposable launch tubes are bulky,
heavy and - when you buy enough of them - expensive compared to the
(generally) smaller rounds for reloadable weapons. The grunts who have to
carry the stuff into combat count as "logisticians" here as well,
though "frown" may be too kind a word for their expressions :-/
Regards,