Re: [SG2]IAVRs and RRs

Barclay, Tom wrote:

>>>RR: ?
>>>Example: Bazooka, Carl Gustav, Panzershreck
> 
>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? 

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
>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 ? 

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
>>>carry? Maybe  8?
> 
>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.... ;) 

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
>>>weapons (or a doubled range bands like a sniper if using quality
>>>rangebands)?
>>>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.

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
>>system (though a future version certainly could be) and the sighting
>>mechanism I assume being closer to those on IAVR-type weapons >>than
vehicle-mounted systems or GMS launchers.  Though some of >>the
MAW-category weapons do have spotting rifles, while none of >>the IAVR
types do, IIRC.
> 
>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...

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
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*. 

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
>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....

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,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry