sniper weapons for SGII

Q. Just for the record whats the go with the Heavy Anti-Material Rifle
(HAMR? and yes I've read the little blurb on page 27. Is it supposed to
be a rifle that fires "anti-matter" slugs or is it just given that name
because of the nasty effect it has on any target it hits.

Regards to all readers

> On 26 Jun 98, at 21:55, Trevor Dow wrote:

> Q. Just for the record whats the go with the Heavy Anti-Material Rifle
It's a solid slug rifle. I think in this case 'Material' is the term some
military arms use for anything that isn't a person. Isn't the rifle for
shooting thin skinned vehicles and stuff (and power armour troops natch)?

                        TTFN
                                        Jon

> On Fri, 26 Jun 1998, Jeremey Claridge wrote:

> Tells me that armed forces are at the planning stage for these

Bringing back ATRs? How are they going to revive something that was obsolete
in 1940?

Covering heavy sniper rifles.....

The US currently lists the Barret .50-cal as a special issue rifle being
fielded for review and seeing use as an "anti-mine" rifle.  ::chuckle::
Guess that's to keep certain types from crying out in horror at the idea of a
12.7mm ball or APDS round being used on people. Though given that.50 cal
sniper rifles are entering as standard to Ranger battalion sniper sections you
can be sure the actual users have no illusions on their employment. As for the
Steyr AMR (also seen it listed as IW2000), it fires a 15mm APDS tungsten
flechette. It's stated mission is to take out large or hardened targets such
as parked
aircraft, communcations gear at CP's, command tracks, damage/destroy
exposed systems on AFV's (ie., optics, designators, missile racks, etc) and
even in some cases get at crew in AFV's through their closed hatches. I have
the penetration figures in an issue of "Raids" magazine somewhere.

> At 02:57 PM 6/26/98 +0300, you wrote:

If they can make it work again I dont see why they would not. Using
Dual-Gas-Compression chamger systems an infantry portable rifle can kill
a big chunk of armor. Get at it from the side or rear and you wont need just a
whole lot of power anyway. And with the ATR you dont need to hang out and see
if you hit the target like ATM are wont to do.

> Q. Just for the record whats the go with the Heavy Anti-Material Rifle

> be a rifle that fires "anti-matter" slugs or is it just given that name

> because of the nasty effect it has on any target it hits.

This may be a version of the 20mm AMR that is in use currently with the USMC
and US Army. They fire either 20mm HE rounds or SLAP (Saboted Light Armor
Piercing) Depleted Uranium rounds. SLAP rounds can be used against both soft
and light armored targets (IFV's become Swiss cheese).

My two cents,

In a message dated 6/26/98 9:49:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
smford@execpc.com writes:

> >Q. Just for the record whats the go with the Heavy Anti-Material

> Swiss cheese).

A 20mm rifle in the US inventory? I'm based at Ft. Bragg with the 82nd nearby
and work on a regular basis with the Rangers not to mention USASOC arms "room"
is right down the street from my barracks. I haven't seen a monster like this
yet, just Barrett.50 cals. I'd like to see your data on this weapon.

> On 26 Jun 98, at 21:55, Trevor Dow wrote:

Yes, this is the one; BTW, it should have been spelled "materiel" - a
small typo in the book.....
The concept is based on the Steyr-Mannlicher AMR that is under
development by Austria (not sure if it is a Government or private commercial
project) -
all this is IIRC, because I only saw one small article on it a while back, but
the AMR is a.50 cal weapon firing some fairly advanced ammo; looks like a
bl**dy long rifle with a big hammerhead muzzle brake and a bipod
(yes, it DOES look a bit like an old anti-tank rifle), and breaks down
into 2 manpack loads. Its purpose is for killing "soft" equipment targets like
command/communications vans etc. in rear areas, and would be operated by
deep insertion sniper/commando teams; it is designed to kill such
targets
at long ranges (1-2 Km plus), the idea being that if you punch a big
solid slug through a van packed with electronics and C3 gear you're going to
bugger it up for a good long while, not to mention killing/wounding a
few operators and if you're lucky an officer too. In SGII terms I've assumed
that this kind of thing would find other uses
too, such as an anti-PA rifle.....

> A 20mm rifle in the US inventory? I'm based at Ft. Bragg with the 82nd

Chris,

I take it from your response that the Army does not as yet field the 20mm. I
was informed about this cannon in 1992, from my brother who is a USMC sniper.
It was used in the Gulf War to remove command and control equipment. There
were confirmed kills to over one mile. There were some very sick jokes that
this weapon was against the Geneva Convention agreement, so as such, could
only be used against enemy equipment... such as SAM systems, IFV's, Comms
equipment, helmets, belt-buckles... etc.

> You wrote:

> Q. Just for the record whats the go with the Heavy Anti-Material Rifle

Anti-Material rifles (not Antimatter) are large-caliber rifles like
that.50 cal thing the USMC has (or, for TNE fans, the 14.5mm Crunch
Gun that fires DS rounds).  It's called anti-material because it's
politically incorrect to say "We designed this thing to be able to punch
through the target's helmet."

In a message dated 6/26/98 10:36:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> smford@execpc.com writes:

> Chris,
There
> were confirmed kills to over one mile. There were some very sick

I'm sure that Los can confirm this but I'm positive that no one has gone to
producing 20mm sniping weapons. Your brother may have been talking about the
Barrett M82's that were being fielded during the Gulf conflict which had that
kind of performance. The largest sniper rifles that I'm aware of include
Steyr's IW2000/AMR and Technika of Hungary with a few rifles that are
chambered for Russian/Warsaw Pact 14.5mm.

> You wrote:

There were some very sick jokes that this >weapon was against the Geneva
Convention agreement, so as such, could only >be used against enemy
equipment... such as SAM systems, IFV's, Comms >equipment,
helmets, belt-buckles... etc.

Welcome to the Military Urban Legend! It is not against the Geneva Conventions
to shoot people with.50cals, 20mm, or 120mm rounds for that matter. I don't
care who told you, or where they heard it. My
source _IS_ the Geneva Conventions, which are available in the full
text version, all four of them plus both protocols additional (which the US
doesn't acknowledge), on the International Committee of the Red Cross home
page. If this were a newsgroup, I'd proceed to post the
entirely of them (I've done it before), but I doubt either my e-mail
software or the list server would appreciate it.

> You wrote:

> If they can make it work again I dont see why they would not. Using

The last ATR in regular military service was, IIRC, the Lahti 20mm used by the
Finnish Army during WWII up until the end of the war. Maybe the Ruskie held
onto their 13mm peashooters a bit longer, I dunno. But
anyway, this Lahti was a semi-automatic conversion with bipod of an
aircraft cannon.  Indeed, some were left full-auto.  :)  Anyway, this
thing could gut a BT-series tank, and even kill a T-34 from the rear at
close range, but was decidedly obsolete by 1944. Panzerfausts became
the Finnish weapon of choice for dismounted tank-killing.  I don't care
what kind of ammo or what kind of chamber system you've got on it, no
rifle can put the sort of energy down-range that a shoulder-fired
rocket can.

LONG war story follws to explain use of heavy sniper rifles in real world.

These "heavy" sniper rifles are used by Special Operations forces to take out
pieces of important equipment. Let me give you an example
(which we actually did _in training_). Let's say you are directed to
eliminate a power grid for 48 hours in a certain region of a target area. Your
ODA (US A detachment from SF) has been tasked with the job. They don't want
the thing utterly demolished they just need to take down power in this
specific region for a short period of time. (Maybe they want to bring the grid
back on line after the areas has been secured.) You have 12 guys, this place
is defended by more than a platoon and it's 40 kilometers behind enemy lines.

In the planning phase, while planning actions at the objective you basically
are focussing on two things. What is the vulnerability of the target (the team
enginer does this through a matrix he puts together) and what is the best way
of attacking it. Now sure everyone has seen all the "realistic" flicks like
Navy Seals, GI Jane, Rambo, whatever. SO natuarlly the logical thing is to
sneak in there at night, slit a few throats and plant some demo right?

Why bother? The engineer has already identified the critical component of this
facility is a steel encased doohicky the size of a refrigerator and look here
it is on target imagery. Destroying this peice will take the whole site down
for at least 48 hours or maybe more due to the criticality of the component
and how long it takes to truck another one out from East Jabru. The engineer
assesses that this thing can be taken out with a.50 cal slug if you it it
right here. (He's looking at his how to kill any piece of equipment book.)

SO analysing all the factors, terrain, and enemy defenzse, you decied that the
safest, most efficient, and stealthy way to kill this thing is to take it out
with a.50 cal sniper rigfle fired from a covered position 500 meters from the
site up on a ridge. A normal M24 (7.62mm standard sniper rifle) won't
guarantee the job will be done so you take the heavy stuff. You go there,
punch a big holein the thing, and power is down.

That's why you use the heavy sniper rifle. 90% of the time it's for taking out
equipment, not people, and certainly not tanks. At elast nowadays. 300 years
from now, who knows?

This might be a repost, not sure if the other one got through. LONG war story
follws to explain use of heavy sniper rifles in real
world...

These "heavy" sniper rifles are used by Special Operations forces to take out
pieces of important equipment. Let me give you an example
(which we actually did _in training_). Let's say you are directed to
eliminate a power grid for 48 hours in a certain region of a target area. Your
ODA (US A detachment from SF) has been tasked with the job. They don't want
the thing utterly demolished they just need to take down power in this
specific region for a short period of time. (Maybe they want to bring the grid
back on line after the areas has been secured.) You have 12 guys, this place
is defended by more than a platoon and it's 40 kilometers behind enemy lines.

In the planning phase, while planning actions at the objective you basically
are focussing on two things. What is the vulnerability of the target (the team
enginer does this through a matrix he puts together) and what is the best way
of attacking it. Now sure everyone has seen all the "realistic" flicks like
Navy Seals, GI Jane, Rambo, whatever. SO natuarlly the logical thing is to
sneak in there at night, slit a few throats and plant some demo right?

Why bother? The engineer has already identified the critical component of this
facility is a steel encased doohicky the size of a refrigerator and look here
it is on target imagery. Destroying this peice will take the whole site down
for at least 48 hours or maybe more due to the criticality of the component
and how long it takes to truck another one out from East Jabru. The engineer
assesses that this thing can be taken out with a.50 cal slug if you it it
right here. (He's looking at his how to kill any piece of equipment book.)

SO analysing all the factors, terrain, and enemy defenzse, you decied that the
safest, most efficient, and stealthy way to kill this thing is to take it out
with a.50 cal sniper rigfle fired from a covered position 500 meters from the
site up on a ridge. A normal M24 (7.62mm standard sniper rifle) won't
guarantee the job will be done so you take the heavy stuff. You go there,
punch a big holein the thing, and power is down.

That's why you use the heavy sniper rifle. 90% of the time it's for taking out
equipment, not people, and certainly not tanks. At least nowadays. 300 years
from now, who knows?

On Fri, 26 Jun 1998 12:56:23 +0100 Jonathan White <jw4@bolton.ac.uk>
wrote:

> On 26 Jun 98, at 21:55, Trevor Dow wrote:

Some one I know who knows things! (as much as I'm saying:)

Tells me that armed forces are at the planning stage for these weapons. But
they are actually talking tank killing! So does this mean Snipers taking out
tanks.

Sometimes I wonder whether Frank Herbert knew more than he was letting on.
Combat in the year 10191 run up and knife the opposition! because every other
weapon is usless or has bad side effects.

I personally have never seen a 20mm sniper rifle. Doesn't mean that it doesn't
exist. i would laso point out that I'm not sniper trained, haven't been to
SOTIC, though I have a sniper on my team.

Also, a lot of people are making winking insinuations that the
"anti-material" rifle is designated a certain way but is actually used
for killing people. The question I would point out is why? For that matter why
not use an AT4? The fact is that anyone who is going on a specific mission to
eleiminate somebody probably has to carry the damn thing quite a ways in. That
means you are not going to want to lug that Barrets monster around, plus your
ruck, team equipment, and personal weapon if you don't need it. You take
whatever you need for the job, nothing more. Unless you are already downrange
for some other job and get tapped to go somewhere else, in which case you'll
apt to be lugging an M24 anyways (in US at least).

> PsyWraith@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 6/26/98 10:36:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

> At 13:45 26/06/98 -0400, you wrote:

        Sounds a bit like the return of the old anti-tank-rifle idea
which the Germans first came up with in WWI. Used a.50 cal slug which became
the basis for that used by the Yanks in their HMG (and still is by them and
their allies). Anti-tank-rifles dropped out because to make them
effective against tanks of '41 on they had to be very hefty and kick like 10
mules. The Russians presisted until the end of the war when they came up with
the RPG. German tankers were a bit shaken when they'd roll over a Russian
infantry position, supporting inf got hammered by mortars and SMG's while the
tankers coped 14.5mm rounds in the side and rear. How you make an effective
weapon of this sort today is a bit of a question..50 cal rounds are supposed
to be ok against light armour like the M113 (this is what I'm told as I have
only ever fired the damn thing from a ship at 44 gal drums. I was all over the
place.) You'd have some
trouble against things like the M2/M3 Bradleys or tanks unless you can
get a track. To improve penetration you could go for squeeze bore but that
makes the weapon heavier (and kick more) and not so popular with grunts.
APFSDS rounds seem to me to be more the go particularly if you make the
round out of uranium. You might up the calibre to 25/30 mm, drop the
muzzle velocity and use EFP (Explosively Forged Projectile) rounds which turn
a lump of metal into a thin pentrator and up your velocity before impact
(British Merlin rounds for 81mm work this way IIRC). Problem would then be
getting promity sensors small and tough enough to use in the round.
Interesting problem. These weapons are already represented in SGII. In DSII
you might make it an infantry weapon with 8" or 12" range and hitting as an
RFAC at medium range.

> At 09:55 26/06/98 -0500, you wrote:

> by the Finnish Army during WWII up until the end of the war. Maybe the

> Ruskie held onto their 13mm peashooters a bit longer, I dunno. But

> close range, but was decidedly obsolete by 1944. Panzerfausts became

> what kind of ammo or what kind of chamber system you've got on it, no

The Russian did keep their version until they copied the Panzerfaust and
called it an RPG. You're right about the energy, at put out that amount of
energy and leave the PBI with some of his shoulder. I don't know why no one
has yet gone for faster than sound missiles. Mount the missile with a solid
penetrator rather than a charge and let rip. Guidance maybe?

[quoted original message omitted]

> On Fri, 26 Jun 1998, John Atkinson wrote:

> The last ATR in regular military service was, IIRC, the Lahti 20mm

I have seen a Lahti 20mm fired from 5 yards away. It's very impressive, very
big (taller than a man), very heavy and still it wouldn't seriously

dent MBT armor in 1941.

Good for taking out APCs, soft-skinned vehicles and even light bunkers,
if you *really* want to lug all that weight around.

The germans had the 28mm "cone rifle" later in the war, which was team served
(2 or 3 men IIRC), but even that wasn't of much use against real tanks.

> But

Not quite true. It was an original design, with the FA version coming
later for AA duty (that one survived in the arsenal into the 60's --
anti-helicopter for airfield defense). I think we sold a bunch of those
to US after the war.

Trivia: The designer's brother shoulder-fired standing a prototype to
prove the concept was viable.

In Finnish tradition, the bipod has little skis on it :-)

> Anyway, this

We couldn't get enough for the Winter War of 1939 when it would have been
useful -- even though the designer supplied test models to the front out

of his own pocket -- and by 1941 it was only used because better things
were not always available. Then again, we did take out T-34's with soda
bottles filled with tar and gasoline...

> Glover, Owen wrote:

I agree vs Power armour.. (I find Buzz bombs are useful too)

We play it that it's effect vs AFVs is as small arms.. it's better than a
RFAC2 otherwise. Too damn good!

> You wrote:

> were not always available. Then again, we did take out T-34's with

And T-26s with lumber.  Read account of Finnish soldier during Winter
War who used fallen trees jammed into a T-26's running gear to
immobilize it, and then shot the Russian tankers as they tried to see what was
happening...

> You wrote:
Sooner or later (he said irrelevantly) I am going to use some of my

Ral Partha war dogs to make some dog mines. Just for laughs. They might be fun
for a few odd scenarios, as well....

John spake thusly upon matters weighty:

> You wrote:

Wouldn't work too well with a grav tank, assuming the repulsion is generated
by the aerodynamic hull, hence no transmission or running gear (you'd have to
attack the hull to attack the grav unit) and
presumably a fusion plant (self-contained) removing the need for much
in the way of engine intakes.

These tanks might be hard to attack (if they hover 10 feet up, infantry can't
board to shove charges or grenades into things). The one point about such a
tank is it must armour all six sides as it cannot gaurantee it won't be
attacked by other grav tanks from above or beneath (or the rear) hence the
armour might be a tad thinner than on a tank which only has to armour four
faces well (or five). The way to attack them might be EMP or grav seeking
missiles or some sort of field generator that varies gravity in an area they
fly through to
cause crashes. Either that or follow the guerilla plan - contaminated
fuel, assassinated crew on liberty, defective ammunition or suborning a
mechanic or rear area worker or just sneaking in to sabotage the vehicles
which are no doubt very complex. It might just be that a futuristic grav tank
is beyond MOST methods used to attack conventional armour of today, since it
may well be a cross between
the armoured tracklayer of today and the tac-air helo or A-10 of
today.

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
**************************************************/

Tom spake thusly upon matters weighty:

> Sooner or later (he said irrelevantly) I am going to use some of

Now, I'm fully in favour of the simulation of war as opposed to the execution
of it. I'm fully in favour of the use of neat ideas. But the above idea just
seems like an idea spawned by a cat lover..... and I think its a pretty crappy
way to treat man's best friend, even in an imaginary game. I'd make a real
point of taking no prisoners when I caught up with the units responsible and
the commanders deploying such a revolting weapon.

Out of curiousity, do you consider Kamikazes funny too?

<To each his own. But it sure ain't for me!>

/************************************************
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
**************************************************/

> Tom spake thusly upon matters weighty:

my
> Ral Partha war dogs to make some dog mines. Just for laughs. They

Actually, I do admire cats more than I do dogs. Cats have grace,
dignity, and style--all things that my dogs have been lacking.  On the
other hand, I like dogs more than I do cats. Dogs are friendly. Dogs are fun.
Dogs are (on rare occasions) useful. Cats just...are.

And when you get right down to it, no I would not strap a bomb to a

dog and send him off to die under a tank's treads. But neither would I pick up
a loaded gun, point it at a living being, and pull the trigger.

When I am playing a game, however, I can do simulate either thing without a
qualm. We are, after all, playing with pieces of metal. They

cannot feel pain, or hate, or anything at all. On the other hand, the Russians
did come up with the idea of dog mines in WWII, and they did make use of it.
Unfortunately, the dogs, having been trained with Russian tanks, promptly ran
under Russian tanks when they were deployed in the field. Tanks go boom. And
yes, I do find that funny, as well as

Ironic. I'd say that they got what they deserved, wouldn't you? (No,
no, not the dogs--the Russians.)  And as new weapon debacles go, it is
second in my estimation only to the American Bat Bomb Fiasco, which (although
it involved the deaths of an untold number of bats) I also find quite funny. I
game with adults, and none of them are likely to go

out and strap a firecracker to Fido after we use Dog Mines in a game. They can
distinguish between fiction and reality without too much trouble. Mostly.

> Out of curiousity, do you consider Kamikazes funny too?

Oy. You forgot to ask me if I've stopped beating my wife. To answer your
question, though, it depends: I find the "Crack Suicide Squad" from the final
moments of "Monty Python's Life of Brian" to be most amusing. As for real
Kamikazes, I can't say that I have much feeling for one way or the other. They
made their choices, and they lived or died with them. I do not, however, spend
any time wondering about the fate of the crew when one of my ships rams an
opponent in Full

Thrust. Do you spend a lot of time wondering about the families of the
troopers who die upon your table? Do you shed a tear for poor Pvt. Funk, as he
eats hot plasma for the umpteenth time? And should you?
> <To each his own. But it sure ain't for me!>
     To sum up--it's a game.  Lighten the hell up.  And trust me, oh
list a large, I have no intention of carrying this discussion any further.

> /************************************************

Tom Sullivan mentioned, whilst defending use of dog-mines in gaming with
adults:

> And as new weapon debacles go, it is

The what? Bats w/ grenades strapped on? For what purpose? (Terror
weapons,
probably - now a bat won't just tangle itself in your hair, it'll blow
your head off) (and yes, I do know that the bats-in-hair thing is pure
myth...)

Please expand on the 'Bat Bomb Fiasco'...

> Brian Burger wrote:
As I understand it, The bats had small incendiery devices attached to
them.  They were supposed to be air-dropped over enemy cities, and then
would seek shelter in dark places, such as attics... where the timed
incendieries would go off. I've heard several stories about what happened
later, but most of them agree that the onlly buildings ever burned down by
this were the labs....

Of course, there's always the "pigeon guided missile" project, which involved
training pigeons to recognize objects, and then by (so the pigeon thought),
pecking certain studs for food, guide the missile to its target.

> Tom Sullivan mentioned, whilst defending use of dog-mines in gaming

The Bat Bombs are one of those ideas that kinda, sorta, ALMOST makes sense,
until you look at it closely. The concept was this: 1) Take a bunch of bats.
2) Strap timed incendiary bombs to them. 3) One fine night, drop the bats out
of a bomber over a large urban

area (Tokyo, in this case). 4) The bats will fly around the city until dawn,
at which point they will seek cover in the nooks and crannies of the local
buildings. 5) A few hours after dawn, the timers set all of the bombs off. 6)
Boom. 7) The city is now in flames.

Nice though this idea may be, the execution left much to be desired. In the
first and only test run of this “system”, the army collected a
whole bunch of bats and froze them--putting them into a state of torpor
so that the bombs could be easily and quickly attached. The bats were then
loaded aboard a bomber, which flew over a test area that had been built for
the purpose. Unfortunately, they didn’t give the bats enough time to thaw out
and wake up. The results were, as they say, somewhat less than pretty. A few
bats did manage to wake up before hitting the
ground, and one of these hid himself under a general’s car--this, and a
few lab buildings, were the only casualties of the test. The experiment

was, strangely, never repeated....

     It should be understood--it’s been several years since I read this
tale, and I cannot remember the source, so it may well be apocryphal. It’s
such a good story that I cannot help but question its veracity, frankly. But
if it isn’t true: it should be.

On Mon, 29 Jun 1998 14:56:20 -0500 Thomas Barclay
> <Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca> writes:

The really big power plant would give off one heck of a lot of heat so it
would have cooling fans? heat exchangers? etc.? at least something fairly
vulnerable. (By the way reactors give off heat not electricity. Its the heat
which is converted to electricity.)

> These tanks might be hard to attack (if they hover 10 feet up,

I think you had better rethink your solution to infantry (hiding ten feet up!)
It has one serious drawback. You've just made yourself a better target for any
other vehicle, weapon or aircraft on the board. I think that solution is worse
than the cure.

I suspect the best thing about grav tanks is just where they CAN hide; in
holes(pull a pop-up), in a swamp, in the middle of a thicket(float down
into it, leave no traks in or out.)

> At 15:04 29/06/98 -0500, you wrote:

Neat idea or not the Russkies tried this. During the 30's the Russians taught
dogs to climb under tanks, the idea being that the dog wuold be carrying
explovies (I dont remember how much). The idea was tested in actual combat
conditions against the Germans in '41. The dogs followed their training most
obediently and ran under RUSSIAN tanks and exploded for the Motherland.