I was skimming Jane's Infantry Weapons the other day, and came upon some
interesting weaponry, toys and gadgets for SG2...
Several companies have shotgun sets, designed to fit under a standard
assault rifle in place of a 40mm grenade launcher - I noticed kits to
fit shotguns to M16s & the Austrian AUG. I'm pretty sure they aren't
autoshotguns, but it's still a shotgun were you might not expect one.
In SG2 terms, I'd call it a regular FP2 assault rifle, with an FP2
close-only shotgun added - no grenade launcher, obviously. Cutting the
shotgun back to FP2 seems to make sense, when it's not a full-sized
automatic combat shotgun. It would count as a shotgun in CC, though.
Comments?
There's lots of other gadgets, but most of them fit into existing rules
mechanics in SG2. Some of the engineering tools I'd like to write into
Stargrunt at some point. Too bad Full Metal Atkinson just signed off
again...
Just out of curiosity, could one of the real military types on the list give
us an idea how widespread some of these things are? The US has an
incendiandary (sp?) rocket in a manpack quad-launcher that's listed as
"In Service"; along with conventional flamethrowers and similar, but how
common is this kit in the field? Any interesting devices that I've missed that
don't make the news much?
Later,
Very Interesting.
In trying to decide what to give my Kra'Vak line soldiers, I did not want to
give them a grenade launcher (explosives and energy weapons do not seem to fit
the Kra'Vak style), so I decided to give them a needle sprayer. A canaster of
needles, projected via gravitic forces with an adjustable spread pattern. The
effect would be similar to a shotgun blast.
Good to know that I was not too far out in left field.
---
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable The Full Thrust Ship
Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
---
[quoted original message omitted]
> Brian Burger wrote:
Hmmm... the grunts have to carry & sort out two kinds of ammo for the same
weapon? I dunno Brian, I can see this turning bad in a hurry if the soldier
has to fish around in his kit for the right kind of ammo while he's in the
middle of a firefight. I doubt that green troops could handle it very
well...
I spent a bit of time as a grunt in the US Marine Corp. I can tell you that
the M203 grenade launcher
(20mm grenade luancher mounted under the M-16) is very
common. M249 SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon) Machine Gun
and the M-60 are very common in reinforced platoons.
Flame throwers are not as common anymore in my experience, heck, I've never
really used them....seen them used, but never really used them. Carbine
versions of the M-16 are fairly common. Shotguns are
common.... unofficially.... in that a quite few of us
tended to bring them along. Light anti-tank weapons
are fairly common as well (things like the AT-4, the
Dragon Missle is a whole different MOS.)
> --- Brian Burger <yh728@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
The 202 "Flash" is a 4 barrel launcher similar to a LAW or AT4, i.e. issued as
ammunition as mission requires. The question is at what level is the "standard
load".
Michael Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
> On 10-Apr-01 at 19:50, Rick Rutherford (Rick@esr.com) wrote:
That's what training is for.
> Andy Cowell wrote:
> > Roger (getting tired of the "stupid grunts" comments, and I'm an
Nor I. I think he's just giving fair acknowledgement to the fact that combat
is stressful enough without having to introduce more into the mix. Admittedly,
I've never (thankfully) been in that situation myself, but being an historian,
can think of plenty of examples of troops being affected by stress in combat
conditions (such as soldiers in the Civil War who kept reloading their weapons
without ever firing them, or the replacement in Aachen (WWII) who kept trying
to fire his weapon after he'd burned through the entire clip. The closest I
can come to it is playing
paintball, which I've done for about the past ten-twelve years, and I
still do stupid stuff like forget to take the safety off if I don't do it
before the shooting starts.:)
In message <ML-3.4.986950635.9383.books@jumpgate.jumpspace.net>, Roger
Books wr ites:
> On 10-Apr-01 at 19:50, Rick Rutherford (Rick@esr.com) wrote:
In most cases, such mishaps fall into two catagories...
1: lack of training. in the marines, they drilled things into us again and
again for just such a reason....so that when all else fails, what you are
trained to do comes most naturally. Civil war soldiers were not well trained
in most cases. Playing paintball is another example of what happens when there
is not proper training. Beleive me, you will be surprised how much you can do
if it is drilled into your head....in combat, it's almost as that yout
training takes over and you don't even realize that you are doing the right
thing. Many many many times I
would switch magazines for my m-16 without even
realizing I had done it. Firing of the m203 grenade launcher can become so
automatic that you can go through many many more rounds then you think you
could.....it's all about drilling these actions into you so far that they
become second nature.
2: Mental breakdown....while I don't have personal experience with this, I
know it happens. How much or how little complication there is to a combat
action is irrelevent in this case. Your own example is a perfect
example......someone loses it and keeps holding down the trigger long after he
is out of rounds.....the action of holding down the trigger is as simple a
combat action as you can take....it's not the action that's the problem, it
the soldier having a mental meltdown.
I know that I carried multiple types of grenades and was always able to choose
the right one when the time came. I suppose the biggest factor as to whether
you would want multiple types of ammo, or any other decision involving
complicating the combat soldiers life, would be how good is the training and
the discipline of the unit.
> --- mreindl@pacbell.net wrote:
> On 10-Apr-01 at 22:45, mreindl@pacbell.net (mreindl@pacbell.net) wrote:
If this were an isolated incident it wouldn't bother me, but over the past two
weeks this is the third comment I've heard about soldiers not being smart
enough to handle the extra weapons. That doesn't require excessive
intelligence, it just requires training. If you have been in many training
situations and you know by reflex the shotgun ammo is in the belt pouch and
the rifle ammo is on your harness then you don't think about it, you just do
it. The rifle with the built in grenade launcher which can be set for distance
is on the way, we'll see it in 10 years max. This will require thought, range
the target, dial in an extra meter, pull trigger two. Maybe in a close
encounter that won't be used, but I would be willing to bet that in an assault
the shift from rifle to shotgun would be trivial.
It reminds me of my test for archaelogical theories. Goes like this, if the
theory requires my ancestors to be stupid I dismiss it out of hand. I've
noticed we, as a society, tend to equate uneducated with stupid. In this
arguement we are equating stressed with stupid. Those who go stupid under
stress won't last long in future (or current) combats.
> Roger Books wrote:
> It reminds me of my test for archaelogical theories. Goes like this,
I didn't see that in the previous posts, nor did I refer to it in that
fashion. In response to your "uneducated with stupid" comment, without getting
too far OT, I think I can say with a bit of authority that uneducated *does*
equal stupid if someone is uneducated by choice (or fails to take advantage of
an educational opportunity, in other words; I'd like to think I'm an authority
on the subject due to the fact that I spend the better part of my days trying
to educate those who don't necessarily want to be:). As for equating stressed
with stupid, I never said that nor did I see anyone else do so (if I missed
it, then mea culpa). Stressed is just that, stressed. Intense training is what
overcomes that in most cases (which is why from what I hear you NEVER want to
question what your DI tells you during boot camp:). But one of the things that
was pointed out was the usefulness of these types of systems when in the hands
of green troops, which, IIRC from the fluff surrounding the SG universe,
are usually conscripts or militia with little/no formal training.
Regular quality troops may be troops that have seen combat, or exceptionally
well-trained troops that have not seen any combat (the 29th Division on
Omaha
Beach, for example, during D-Day would be prime examples of these types
of troops). I would expect troops of regular quality or above to be able to
handle the extras, but not necessarily green or militia to perform as well.
Some might do well, but the majority probably would have some difficulty, but
I wouldn't necessarily call it stupid.
In a message dated 4/10/01 11:38:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> books@jumpspace.net writes:
> If this were an isolated incident it wouldn't bother me, but over the
I haven't seen any comments about the stupidity of soldiers, either. However I
think most of us agree. The problem is not intelligence but training. As an
ex-squid myself, I can attest to the effectiveness of training. We
exercised constantly, drilling all the important evolutions over and over. I
remember when we had a fire on board and I went from sitting in CIC manning a
radar to manning the valves for hose #2 without remembering passing through
any of the passageways between. I aint that smart, guys. Its the training that
does it and I think that's what we're all saying, just in differing words.
John Rebori ETN2 (Discharged)
USN 1976 - 1982
ex-USS Pegasus PHM-1
G'day guys
> ex-squid
I'm guessing you're not talking about cephalopods here????
Thanks
Beth
In a message dated 4/11/01 12:46:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au writes:
> G'day guys
Sorry, in the US military world, squid is a nickname for sailor. Just like
grunt is a soldier, and flyboy is an airman. There are others but thats the
idea.
John Rebori ETN2 (Discharged)
USN 1976 - 1982
ex-USS Pegasus PHM-1
G'day
> Sorry, in the US military world,
Ohhhh...... <sound of light bulb going on>;)
Thanks
Beth
Along with this I would add that in Stargrunt there tends to be a small number
of well trained troops on the board. My take is that it is expensive to move
these troops. Therefore they will be well trained.
Yes your untrained folks should have trouble handling multi-ammo
weapons. But by the time they are green they have at least had the training in
how to use them. There are already penalties built in to the system for greens
without the need to add a "Fumble the wrong ammo".
Bob Makowsky
[quoted original message omitted]
Hi Beth,
I though you were supposed to be resting???
Get well soon, Mike
Beth Fulton <beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au>@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU on
11/04/2001 05:43:40
Please respond to gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Sent by: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
cc:
Subject: Re: Toys from Jane's...
G'day guys
> ex-squid
I'm guessing you're not talking about cephalopods here????
Thanks
Beth
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Elizabeth Fulton
c/o CSIRO Division of Marine Research
GPO Box 1538 HOBART TASMANIA 7001 AUSTRALIA
Phone (03) 6232 5018 International +61 3 6232 5018
Fax 03 6232 5053 International +61 3 6232 5053
email: beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au
************************************************************************
**
Privileged, confidential and/or copyright information may be contained
in
this e-mail. This e-mail is for the use only of the intended addressee.
If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for
delivering it to the intended addressee, you may not copy, forward, disclose
or otherwise use it or any part of it in any way whatsoever. To do so is
prohibited and may be unlawful.
If you receive this e-mail by mistake please advise the sender
immediately
by using the reply facility in your e-mail software.
Bull Information Systems Limited may monitor the content of e-mails sent
and received via its network for the purposes of ensuring compliance with its
policies and procedures.
This message is subject to and does not create or vary any contractual
relationship between Bull Information Systems Limited and you.
Bull Information Systems Limited. Registered Office: Computer House, Great
West Road, Brentford, Middlesex TW8 9DH. Registered in England. Registration
Number: 2017873
Thank you.
My idea was not to load and unload ammo holders. My idea was to have
cartridges (similar to the size of shotgun shells or grenades) that were in a
separate magazine or chamber (similar to the underslung GL). When the range
fell below a certain level (such as in a close assault), the Kra'Vak would
only have to either change a selector or pull a different trigger. It
may only hold 5-10 rounds of the needle cartridges, but that should be
sufficient for the need at hand. After the immediate action it could be
reloaded.
Also, since we are talking SciFi here, the gun, itself, may select the firing
barrel and ammo type based on the distance to the target at which it is
pointed. But I think that this is unnecessary, even a juvenile Kra'Vak would
have the capacity to choose to use one, the other or both barrels in a given
situation.
Related, how many rounds does an underslung grenade launcher hold (or do you
have to reload it after every fire)? Is it normally carried loaded?
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://www.ftsr.org/sg2/
-----
> -----Original Message-----
> Bob Makowsky wrote:
Not having any service experience, I'm not sure how this shotgun /
assault rifle combination differs from a grenade launcher / rifle combo
in the respect that they both require two ammo types. If the rifle and shotgun
together can cause problems in terms of finding the right ammo,
then surely so should an AR/GL ? To my knowledge, no-one has yet raised
that as a problem?
AMEN BROTHER!!!!
> --- Roger Books <books@jumpspace.net> wrote:
I can definitively say that I never...in 8 yrs in the Marines....had a problem
confusing my ammo betweem my M16 and my M203.
Heh heh heh If you actually saw these weapons and ammo, you would understand
how absurd that entire concept is.
Mixing up the ammo of a modern assault rifle and a shotgun is just as absurd.
Heh heh heh, folks, if only for the diffence in size, there is no way to put a
shotgun shell into an assault rifle and vice versa.
Heh heh heh heh, I really get a kick out of wargamers that have never had any
military experience, much less combat experience, they're so playfully
ignorant of how to actually fight a war. (Granted, this is a good thing, the
fewer of us required to fight, the more there is to do productive
things....like researching
an FTL drive!!! You non-combatants ARE researching
that right? Heh heh heh)
> --- Tony Francis <tony.francis@kuju.com> wrote:
> On 11-Apr-01 at 00:46, Beth Fulton (beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au) wrote:
US Navy, derived from the fact that women often say nothing has more hands
than a sailor.:)
You have a point, but I've also met my share of ex-military who carry
this strange know-it-all complex that is simply laughable. I've met
guys who figure two years service makes them an expert in all things military.
I once met a "tanker" who used his military background as grounds for
knowledge in everything from anicent warfare to naval engagements.
In addition, knowing how to fight a war doesn't always serve you when
you have to filter real-world tactics through a rules system. I don't
know how many times I've tried to replicate tactics used historically only to
hit a rules wall.
But mostly, you're right.
Eli,
Designated non-com
> Heh heh heh heh, I really get a kick out of wargamers
Sailor: Wolf in ships clothing..
Michael Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
It's real easy to take pot shots at the supposed lack of intelligence of
infantry. I've had plenty of experiences of training non-combat troops
in infantry tactics and not just basic stuff but taking them up to the point
where they can conduct a live fire assault course (a real wazoo one too)
without killing themselves or their buddies. It's always amusing to lead them,
through their own experience of doing, to the self realization that if you
intend to stay alive on the sharp end, you have to be switched on, thinking
all the time, firing on all cylinders, and pretty damn smart even if it ain't
all "book learnin's". And all this when your physical and mental state is
normally pushing the low end of acceptable performance specs. It's a humbling
experience for them.
Los
p.s. regarding Squids...anyone in the Navy is a squid.
[quoted original message omitted]
In message <ML-3.4.986960284.2777.books@jumpgate.jumpspace.net>, Roger
Books wr ites:
> If this were an isolated incident it wouldn't bother me, but over the
All true. I believe I am arguing a more general case than you are. I don't
think many soldiers in combat are going to try and load their
M-16 with ammo for another weapon. I certainly don't think soldiers
in general are stupid. I do think that even an army with well-trained
soldiers will have those soldiers that make mistakes, especially under combat
conditions, and especially with inexperienced troops.
No army's training is 100% effective. This isn't meant to be an insult to
soldiers or anybody's army. It's a fact that even talented people make
mistakes. Michael Jordan has missed game critical shots. Was he stupid, or
lazy, or untrained? No, and nobody was even shooting at him.
Perhaps sometimes people emphisize this fact too much, so that it might seem
people think "stupid grunts," but it is an important fact to remember,
especially in real life. It is reasonable to believe that the more complicated
you make a soldier's life, the more training he will require to be effective,
and the more mistakes that are likely
Personally I don't see tremendous value in an over/under with a SG.
Though some have experimented with it for real, it never really catches on.
One of the only reasons to have a shotgun in a CQC situation (other than
that's all you have), is as a ballistic breaching tool, (Shooting out hinges
and locks). Which after you do that you can just as well use that as your long
gun. In FMA SG terms you already have a rifle w/ GL (20/30mm). Easy
enough to have a specialist breaching round that you load in a clip of when
doing the breach. And anyways it's not terribly easy or quick to breach a door
with shotgun shells, as precise aiming and knowing exactly what the layout of
the hardware on the other side of the door is quite essential.
Now if you have a weapons system that you can modularly attached different
stuff on to, then I suppose you can do a SG underneath. But in a CQC
environment, (particularly restrictive) all over under's get a bit cumbersome.
Also if you are doing this one op and then heading back to base it's one
thing, but for an infantryman who's hauling them same weapon around all over
hell's half acres then having your assault rifle with a SG slung underneath is
like tits on a bull.
Los
[quoted original message omitted]
I'm sorry, I didn't intend to insult anyone, and I certainly don't think that
soldiers are necessarily stupid!
I apologize for the mis-communication.
-- Rick Rutherford
[quoted original message omitted]
Tony,
Very good point. I think this shotgun underslung on an assault rifle is used
as a universal key to open doors and such. I do not think it is the primary
weapon used even in close combat situations. Maybe Los can chime in on this?
Bob
[quoted original message omitted]
Re: "Stupidity" of military personnel.
I've been involved in the design of several bits of military kit.
Some principles we applied:
a) There is no such thing as idiot-proof. There's always a bigger
idiot than you've bargained for. Deal with it.
b) Try to make the gear operable by people who are rather stupid.
Literally Stupid, as in stupified, sleepy, semi-conscious, rather than
moronic or lacking intellect.
This can be simulated adequately by getting the admittedly
very-intelligent designers to operate it having had no sleep for 2 days.
Because the people who have to use it in the field may well be suffering